binder from the brookings institution. ther william ruger from cato institute joins us to talk about escalating tensions iran --the u.s. and ira iran. morning, it is tuesday, january 7. former white house national security adviser john bolton alters the dynamic of the looming senate impeachment trial when he announced he would be willing to testify if subpoenaed. wranglingparked between democrats and republicans over how the trial should be conducted. we begin by getting your reaction to the prospect of aohn bolton being witness and what you think a fair impeachment trial looks like. democrats can call in at (202) 748-8000. .epublicans, (202) 748-8001

independents (202) 748-8002. you can also send us a text at (202) 748-8003. please include your name and where you are from. catch up with us on social media . a very good tuesday morning to you. here are the headlines on john being's statement about win willing to testify. the story noting that bolton rejected demands -- as the administration delayed military aid. here is john bolton's statement from yesterday. "during the impeachment controversy i have tried to meet my obligation as a citizen and former national security adviser. since my testimony is an issue i

have tried to resolve the issue as best i could. based on careful consideration and study i have decided that it's the senate issues a subpoena i am prepared to testify to -- testify." >> a few hours ago the momentum for uncovering the truth in the senate trial gathered more momentum. one of the key witnesses i have bolton,r, mr. john former national security advisor to president trump correctly acknowledged that he needs to comply with a senate subpoena for his testimony if issued. previously mr. bolton said he was leaving the question after the courts. clearhe made it perfectly that he will, if the senate asks, as he should. we other potential witnesses have identified, mr. mulvaney, mr. duffy, mr. blair, should do the same.

bolton, likemr. mr. mulvaney, mr. duffy, and mr. blair, has crucial eyewitness knowledge of the president's dealings with ukraine. about how decisions were made to withhold security assistance and how opposition within the administration to that delay that president trump seemed to want was overcome. a simple majority is all it takes to ensure that the senate issues a subpoena for these witnesses. republicans decide that mr. bolton and the three other witnesses are to be heard, they will be heard because every democrat will vote for that. it is up to four senate republicans to support bringing in mr. bolton and the three other witnesses as well as the key documents we have requested to ensure all of the evidence is presented at the outset of the senate trial.

that mr. bolton's lawyers have stated he has new and relevant information to share, if any senate republican closes issuing subpoena it's to the witnesses or the documents we have requested they would make it clear they are participating in a cover-up on one of the most sacred duties we have in this congress, in this senate. that is to keep a president in check. host: chuck schumer on the floor of the senate yesterday. getting your reaction this morning to john bolton being willing to testify in the senate impeachment trial. democrats (202) 748-8000. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents (202) 748-8002. lengthy of reaction on the floor of the senate and on twitter. here are a few senators. a democrat from massachusetts saying "democrats want fact

witnesses with direct knowledge of trump's abuse of power, their trial has witnesses and leader mcconnell needs to take yes for an answer and allow bolton and any other administration official to testify in the impeachment trial ." >> republicans would have subpoenas flying by the end of business." "the testimony and evidence considered in the senate impeachment trial should be the same testimony and evidence the house relied on when they passed the articles of impeachment. our job is to vote on what the house passed not to conduct an open-ended inquiry." we want to hear from you. daniel is up first from washington, d.c.. good morning. caller: thank you. forp should be impeached

damaging 68,000 innocent children, separating them from their parents. don't be so naive that this is not a war with iraq. it has been planned with 1979. this phase started when trump destroyed the path to peace when he withdrew from the nuclear agreement. now they are setting up a cause for war. host: we are going to get more --o the tensions with iran caller: let me finish my thought. has theed states lincoln aircraft carrier and a , thisombing run extrajudicial assassination violates every norm and this is already paid for in the $750 billion defense budget. host: we will talk a lot more

about iran today. we want to spend this first segment focusing on the impeachment trial and that news about john bolton. we will come back to iran in about 45 minutes. jason from oak ridge, tennessee, democrat. caller: [indiscernible] give the republicans what they wanted -- host: what do you mean by that? timothy is in new york, republican, good morning. i am tired of hearing about the impeachment stuff. i want to concentrate on the united states. homeless andare dying out there in the streets.

this is ridiculous. democrats want to impeach because thet president is doing stuff that the democrats will not have the guts to do. host: one of the questions is what a fair impeachment trial looks like, what do you think that looks like? should i think that they just dismiss the case of impeachment. this president did not do what he's saying he did. president did do what they say the president did. it's ridiculous. host: timothee in new york this

morning. one of the callers bringing up the clinton impeachment. that was talked about on the senate floor yesterday. republicans saying the same rules that applied during the clinton impeachment should apply to the upcoming trump impeachment trial in the senate. this is senator john cornyn on the floor of the senate yesterday. cornyn: the senate is an institution that follows the rules and we follow our precedent. the most obvious precedent is the clinton impeachment trial. saw 100 senators agreed to a procedure which allowed both sides to present their cases after which there was a boat to see what additional testimony would be required. agreement to provide three additional witnesses, not in a circus-like

atmosphere on the floor of the senate but through depositions taken out of court that could be out of the chamber and those excerpts of those depositions could be offered as evidence. that is the procedure that is supported by the democratic leader the senator from new york. i suggest that what is fair for president clinton is fair for president trump. it is not much more complicated than that. that is the most relevant precedent. republican from texas on the floor of the senate yesterday delving more into the clinton impeachment trial rules. i want to show you how they were an senatethis was resolution 16 that was passed in 1999, a bipartisan resolution that set the rules for the clinton trial. they were first that the house of representatives and their managers were allowed 24 hours

to make their presentation in favor of impeachment. then the clinton defense team was allowed 24 hours to make their presentation. each side allowed to determine the number of persons that would make that determination. senators were alive 16 hours to question those impeachment managers. vote onte would then whether to dismiss the case if the case for impeachment were not dismissed and then a boat would be held on whether to subpoena witnesses. ifwitnesses were agreed -- the vote was agreed to the senate would decide on which witnesses would testify and then both sides would present their evidence and testimony. senators would deliberate behind senatedoors in the old chamber on capitol hill behind closed doors. the final vote was held on each article of impeachment.

those are the rules that were set up ahead of the clinton impeachment. asking viewers if they think those rules would be fair if they were applied to the trump impeachment trial in the senate. democrats,e from republicans, and independents. bolton, the former national security advisor, saying he would be willing to be one of those witnesses to testify in the senate impeachment trial. albert from michigan, democrat. and thethe republicans , like timothy who just called, they do not want the truth to come out or accountability. they don't want new information. they just want to protect trump. i find it amazing that john -- longtimepublican

republican has new information, very damaging information, he is going to testify that this was a drug deal engineered by giuliani, the republicans are not interested in the truth or the constitution, they are only interested in protecting donald trump. this is shocking to me. host: what about the process of what happened during the clinton impeachment trial? whether tovote on dismiss or keep going and then they decide to have additional witnesses testified. think that would be much better than mitch mcconnell. mitch mcconnell wants to tank the whole thing. host: that's what mitch mcconnell is arguing for, he is arguing for the same process that they would go through the presentations would be made that

a boat would be held on whether to dismiss and then there would be a vote on whether additional witnesses would be called. democrats worry that the process may end in a boat to dismiss before they get to the ability to call additional witnesses. the senate has done virtually nothing in investigating this matter i don't think. the witnesses, we don't have any documents. processthe impeachment is the administration is withholding documents, not only withholding documents, witnesses, it is a complete obstruction of justice. during the impeachment hearings there is obstruction of justice. i would like a broader and longer discussion.

if bolton has new testimony that has not been introduced let bolton come in and submit written testimony. host: albert in michigan this morning. getting your phone calls this morning. this is an independent out of new york. good morning. with the agree procedure that was applied to clinton. the problem now is the gentleman telling me this is only to protect trump. we have seen the same thing, i can tell you that bolton is not going to say anything different. the question is why do we have a new set of rules. let us do exactly what we did during the clinton trial and let this come out. this might be the first time -- -- imight just dismiss it

don't know how long we are going to wait for these things. the president cannot do his job and we have an international crisis brewing. i think this is politics. let us do what we did to clinton and let's follow the procedure. we cannot defend this. just to remind viewers of where the boat stands. it would require a simple majority of 51 votes if they get to that point of subpoenaing witnesses. to subpoena new witnesses in the trial would mean just four to breakns would need ranks and adjoin democrats who are expected to support calling witnesses. seatlicans with a 53 majority in the senate. here is how some of the votes breakdown. the ones that are being closely

watched by those who are looking for swing voters. the washington post noting that mitt romney agreed monday it was imperative that john bolton testify. moderate senate republicans like susan collins and lisa murkowski have said they are open to hearing from witnesses. thaty saying as we noted his support is behind calling john bolton. plenty of republicans on capitol hill will be tracked in their statements and what they are doing and saying in the coming days as we move towards this trial. actuallye does not have the articles of impeachment yet. nancy pelosi is yet to transmit them to the senate for a trial. that would be the first step in this process before the senate talks about its rules. in south bend, indiana a democrat. good morning. caller: let's start with bolton.

was going to testify in the house and had to go through the courts to see if he was allowed to testify. mulvaney wanted to ride on his coattails for the same reason. bolton said, get your own lawyer. then they go over to the senate. in the senate you have a bunch of republican senators like lindsey graham and the guy from florida, the other ones that are saying they don't want to hear from bolton. why wouldn't she want to hear from bolton? trump and then everyone can go along and blame the deep state again. now all of a sudden we want to listen to intelligence agencies. now we want to go through and say we want to do with the clinton way. starr interviewed all these people and wrote a report and they read the report, they did

not have any witnesses. they rush to that through as much as they could. i am an american. i want to hear the truth. i don't want to hear somebody on a curvy couch give me half-truths. i want to hear the truth. i want to hear bolton and the people that are involved. we were not allowed to hear that in the house. all they wanted to do was grandstand but you never heard anything. let's get off the pot and get going with this and be done with it. if you don't want us to impeach this president because of what is going on then get up off your but. what i heard this morning is mcconnell and lindsey graham all they want to do is push through something. if you are not going to bring over the articles by friday they are going to dismiss everything. if i was the house i would bring bolton and subpoena bolton and tell him to come to the house.

then let it all out. let's see how many brave republicans in the senate will let the guy testified. nancy pelosi has yet to transmit the articles of impeachment over to the senate. hoping to get a commitment about witnesses or documents before making that transmission. republicans trying to force the transmission so they can hold their trial. one of the republicans looking to force nancy pelosi to transmit the articles of impeachment is a senator from missouri. he introduced a new resolution in the senate for new rules about the process. nobody thought before speaker pelosi launched this gambit that the house could sit on articles of impeachment indefinitely in order to stop a senate trial.

if the constitution remains in effect and the senate has the ther to try cases, president will get his day in court, if the american people are going to have the ability to have this issue resolved -- the senate has to act. rulesi am proposing new that will set a time limit on the action of the house. it will give the house speaker 25 days from the day the articles were adopted and published, 25 days to transmit those articles here to the senate, to exhibit them as the house rules and senate rules anticipate and if that is not done in 25 days and the house speaker has not acted the senate cannot move forward with the trial, in my resolution and the change in the rules i proposed the senate would be able to introduce a motion to

dismiss these articles for lack of prosecution. in the real world when a prosecutor brings a case but refuses to try it the court has the ability and the defendant has the constitutional right to have those articles, those indictments, those charges dismissed. that is precisely the action i am proposing today. host: senator josh hawley on the floor of the senate. getting your reaction and talking about what a fair senate trial would look like. alan is in washington, a republican. good morning. caller: i noticed they never said anything about having shifty schiff and all of those guys, the whistleblower, the them,ones from biden all he never talks about them.

he talks about the ones that he wants from the administration. when it is shifty schiff that has more information about the and all that. that phony trial that they had -- thingsmpeachment they had going on with him. host: do you think republicans should agree to witnesses being called in the senate trial if they can call people like adam schiff and joe biden? that they should allow people like john bolton to testify before the senate? going to sayon aint' anything. -- schiff information has information on the whistleblower. schiff has information on all of those. off inlied his butt

those hearings. the importance of what he sees could come from a bolton witness testimony in the senate. witnesss an important in the misconduct in ukraine -- now he is willing to come forward, the senate must allow testimony from him, mulvaney, and others. adam schiff on twitter yesterday. to remind you of some of what -- has saidhas said during the investigation and during the withholding of military aid to ukraine, through how he was brought up in the various testimonies that took place during the impeachment proceedings. that boltonestified exploded in frustration after a white house meeting on july 10 in which gordon sondland the

european abbasid -- the ambassador to the european union pressured officials in ukraine to open investigations into biden and 2016 campaign. bolton, hill said, equated the discussions to with a drug dealer and told her to report it to the national security council. testifying that bolton was very sympathetic when he expressed concerns that then national security advisor and military aid to ukraine was being leveraged for political favor. first -- cables to mike pompeo to document the issue. a few of the references of john bolton during that testimony. stacy from mclean, virginia. independent, you are next. caller: good morning. i am offended we even have to subpoena john bolton. if you are a true american patriot he would put country first and testify.

we should not have to drag the courts in here to testify. the gentleman from washington said, that we need to have adam schiff testify, we need to have the nine republicans that went to russia on the fourth of july and lied about being in russia. we did not find out about that meeting until a russian spy told us they were down there. we need to find out what went on in those meetings. the gop is acting like the government of putin. host: would you be willing to have adam schiff and joe biden testified if you could hear from john bolton and others? caller: i would have jesus testify if we have to. we are talking about our country. this is not a democratic or republican issue. this is an american issue. we are a young country. if we can keep this republic it is not about democrat or republican, it is an american issue.

if you are not putting this country first you are not un-american american, you are a traitor. host: from murfreesboro, tennessee, republican. good morning. caller: good morning, how are you? i have a quick comment. as far as i am concerned the senate needs to try the case on the evidence produced by the fair and thorough according to them investigation. where is that evidence? host: no more witnesses? caller: i don't think so. schiff had the opportunity to call bolton through the subpoena when he was challenged on -- he withdrew the subpoena when he was challenged on it. he should not have pushed the courts out like that. this is like a second bite at the apple. they are expecting the senate to redo the house investigation and to try the case in addition to that.

say about would you the tweet yesterday that if john bolton had information that exonerated the president and know that republicans would have subpoenaed him by the close of business today? caller: i doubt it. what exactly is bolton going to say that's going to be any different than what is already exonerating the president basically? speculation, rumor, opinions. it is not evidence. able to dowould be is give his opinion as well. he was on the conversation or had direct knowledge of it. host: this is harmon out of seattle, washington. a democrat, you are next. caller: i just want to make a , especially about

this lady that just got off the phone. he was one of the main guys that they need to talk to. afraid of whatt that morandses -- at 1600 pennsylvania avenue has at 1600cking -- moron pennsylvania has been blocking them from testifying, let them testify what they heard. why are all of these right so afraid of letting the people testify? just likea democrat, this lady said, it is not a republican. we are trying our best to keep this republic going. host: that was harmon in washington. brock from newark, new jersey. independent, good morning. caller: thank god for c-span.

i just wanted to say i am an independent. definitely an independent thinker. as far as this impeachment thing , people are going to look at the same thing and see two different things. because we live in an independent type of thought and you choose what you want to see. we will always have this kind of disagreement on everything, even when it comes to racism. say is clear racism then others will say it is not. we will have these discussions until the end of time. i am definitely nervous about on. war situation going we need to pray for our country,

pray for australia and rico. we need to have more in common and less disagreements. host: a few comments from twitter on john bolton potentially testifying in the senate impeachment trial. patricia saying that bolton should testify and it looks guilty if the senate refuses, more obstruction. bolton'sestimony of critical why didn't the house go to courts for a subpoena?" the job of the house's discovery in the job of senate is to waive weigh thece -- evidence. hehink it is selfish that now wants to testify but if it gives more evidence of trump's abuse of power, just a few comments from you.

is (202)r for text 748-8003. you can give us a call, democrats (202) 748-8000. republicans (202) 748-8001. independents (202) 748-8002. more from the senate floor on what the senate impeachment trial should look like. from one of the more important voices in that conversation, mitch mcconnell yesterday criticizing democrats for the process they are trying to push in the senate. here is mitch mcconnell. >> house democrats hunger to our senate president just like they broke their own house president. the senate does not just go along on the occurrence of every news cycle. the house may have been content ownstray from their norms to hurt the president but that is not the senate.

a process this constitutionally serious, even with tensions rising in the middle east, house democrats are treating impeachment like a political toy. like a political toy, treating their own effort to remove our commander-in-chief like a frivolous game. these bizarre stunts do not serve our constitution or our national security. they erode both. colleagues should not plow away american unity in some bizarre intramural competition to see who dislikes the president more. rushing through a purely partisan impeachment process and toying around with it. governing is serious business.

the american people deserve better. host: senator mitch mcconnell from the senate floor, getting your reaction to john bolton's willingness to testify in a senate impeachment trial. this is sheila from birmingham, alabama. independent, good morning. caller: i have been fighting calling but let me tell you something. there is a difference between the clinton impeachment and the trump impeachment. sex, trumpas about is about giving pollutant and russia the usa. it will be the united states of russia. areof the republicans getting russian rubles. they are getting paid from the very beginning. that crawl back under your rock. host: you say there is a

difference in the impeachments, should there be a difference in how the trial is run? caller: exactly. exactly. trump is about selling out the country. clinton was about sex. two different things. host: what about the prosecution of the trial? caller: they need to bring everybody. cabinet, part of his that has hung around with trump. they need to bring them all in and put them under subpoena and let them sing like mockingbirds. he will not be in the white house for more than 30 minutes. host: the rules for the impeachment trial in the senate during the clinton impeachment, the house impeachment managers and the clinton defense lawyers presented their case for 24 hours each. senators were allowed to ask their questions for 16 hours. there was a vote on whether to

dismiss the impeachment. the rule was if the impeachment was not dismissed there would be a vote on whether to subpoena will additional witnesses in the trial. each side would be allowed to present their evidence and the senate would be allowed to deliberate behind closed doors. then a final vote on each article of impeachment. that was set on january 8 of 1999 ahead of the impeachment trial. that process is what mitch mcconnell and john cornyn and other republicans have argued is what should be followed heading into the trump impeachment trial. noteponse on that specifically from senator chuck schumer on the floor of the senate yesterday. this is what he had to say. haseader mcconnell suggested we follow the 1999 example of beginning the impeachment trial first then deciding on witnesses and documents after the articles are

complete. he keeps making this argument and does not gather steam because it is such a foolish one. let me respond for the benefit of my colleagues. witnesses and documents are the most important issue and we should deal with them first. to hear legal mcconnell say no witnesses now but maybe some later is just another indication that he has no argument against witnesses and documents on merit, he is afraid to address the argument because he knows it is a loser for him so he wants to decided later. there is no reason. in fact it is sort of backwards. we will have all the arguments and then say maybe we will have witnesses and documents? the arguments first and the evidence later? as i have said, leader

mcconnell's in view of the trial is an alice in wonderland view. first the trial than the evidence. more important than precedent is the fact that his analogy plainly does not make sense because you do not have both sides present their arguments first and then afterward as for the evidence we know out there. the evidence should inform the trial not the other way around. senate minority leader chuck schumer on the floor of the senate. this is michael out of san diego, california. in my opinion the house missed the most serious charge they should have brought against little donnie which is involuntary manslaughter for all the deaths of u.s. citizens that happened in puerto rico because of no fresh water, no power and no way to get supplies around the island.

they did not need paper towels. usa, hospitale ships, cargo ships, and helicopters. most people do not understand how much power and freshwater a navy ship can produce, the bigger the ship more it can make. i don't know why they did not think about charging him with this. host: you are calling in on the republican line, are you a republican who supported the president in 2016? caller: hack no. toegistered as a republican vote against him in the primaries here in california. anyone that votes for him is not a true american. my father spent years in the navy and i don't know if he would support him or not. thank you. host: michael in california. two delaware, elizabeth on our line for republicans. caller: good morning, how are you? host: doing good.

caller: i believe the senate will vote to dismiss because i democrats whoe were voted out trying to continue media power. they are in their own egos. i am upset -- my brother was killed in vietnam, he was a helicopter pilot. was 21e me a letter, he and i was 23. he said we are fighting this war with one hand tied behind our backs. ire it is and the media -- don't care about the funeral of an iranian or iraqi. president trump deserves our -- theyas he struggles take away from his ability to be viewed with respect by other countries --

schumer, and that other creep. they are traders. i have news. not only will the impeachment trial fall to pieces but donald trump is going to win and he is going to win big in november. host: elizabeth in delaware, bringing up iran, more to talk about that in our next two segments of the washington journal. having those conversations on a day that top leaders in the house and senate are set to have a briefing on iran. all members expected to get a briefing tomorrow afternoon. members of the house and senate, mike pompeo, the secretary of defense mark esper will be on capitol hill tomorrow. plenty more to talk about that today and in the ongoing days. edward and washington, d.c.. a democrat, you are next. caller: i just want to say this

one thing. cautious want to be about bolton's testimony, i think it could backfire. trump gave them exactly what he wanted, war with iran. i think they should be cautious about what he might say. i think he will back trump. that's all i wanted to say. host: what do you think you might say? heler: he got exactly what wanted. he wanted war with iran and military spending. he openly talks with the witnesses. he controls the witnesses and he is going to tell them to tell bolton exactly what he wants him to say. host: audrey is next in georgia, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i have been listening to all the calls coming in and i noticed

that all the republicans have taken up trump's mantle of calling names. i wonder if this is what they want their children to do on the playground. if they do they will not last long. is, if donald trump can tell his cabinet that they do not have to testify when they are subpoenaed why do we have to go to jury duty? we get called for jury duty and if we do not show up without a good reason we go to jail. in that statement that john bolton released yesterday he went through the process of how he came to this decision to offer to testify if subpoenaed. let me dive into it for you. this is from his statement posted on his political action

committee page. he wrote during the impeachment controversy i tried to meet my obligations both as a citizen and a formal national -- former national security advisor. the statement goes on. in that statement is the background he talked about. he said a colleague was faced with a house committee subpoena and a presidential directive not to testify, sought final resolution of this constitutional conflict from the federal judiciary. after my counsel informed the house committee i would seek a judicial resolution to these constitutional issues the committee chose not to subpoena -- i resolved to be guided by the outcome of the case. the house of and representatives oppose this effort on jurisdictional grounds and each other on the merits. the house committee withdrew its subpoena in a deliberate attempt

to move the case and deprived a court of jurisdiction. in a carefully reasoned opinion he held the case to be mood. it does not reach the separation of powers issue. the house has conducted its constitutional responsibility of adopting articles of impeachment related to the matter. this is the statement you are , myng most in papers today testimony is at issue and i have had to resolve serious issues as much as i can. i have concluded that if the senate issues a subpoena for my testimony i am prepared to testify. that is the full statement from john bolton that he posted yesterday. it is the statement we are

getting your reaction to this morning and your thoughts on what a fair senate impeachment trial looks like. the bronx, independent, good morning. caller: i want to point people to certain prophecies in the bible. please hear me out because it is very simple. host: can you related to what is happening today and what we are talking about? caller: both of the war in iran and the inevitable impeachment and removal of trump our process -- our prophesies and daniel and revelations. host: i trust you can read it for us. take us to your prophecy of what you think is going to happen in the coming weeks and months? caller: the next verse says the court will sit and his power will be taken away. revelations 13 says the beast will exercise its authority for 42 months.

that is revelations 13 five. it says 42 months exactly. as we can see the impeachment is happening now, he is clearly doing things that prove what obama said initially, that he is completely unfit to be the president. daniel chapter seven verse 25 and 26 and revelations 13 verse five. very specifically prophesies what is happening right now. host: this is tim out of baltic, ohio. republican, good morning. theer: i think they have government all backwards. it should be a two thirds vote to get the impeachment started. had they done that we wouldn't be sitting here listening to all of these idiots calling in. it's completely backwards. host: do you think conviction should be a two thirds vote or a simple majority? caller: it should all be a two

thirds vote. this is a union. not a democracy. it is a republic. it should be a two thirds vote to get it started and a two thirds vote to complete it. host: now that we are at this stage what do you think a fair trial looks like? caller: i think they have it all messed up now that it is not even going to be considered fair. host: regardless of what happens? caller: -- the train is off its tracks. is donna out of derby, connecticut. a democrat, good morning. caller: happy new you. startedn the hearings devon nunez said the democrats refused to call three witnesses, that nobody answered to the three questions that he stated

in his opening statement, that's what nunez said. it seems to me that the republicans would definitely want to have a trial and call witnesses. they can call these three witnesses that devon nunez said would know the three answers to the questions he has raised. host: donna and connecticut. this is brenda out of kentucky, republican, good morning. caller: good morning. i have a comment to make about the impeachment. from what i understand every democrat in the senate is voting and four of the republicans vote for it than he is out of there. than it would take more four. joinuld take four to democrats to call witnesses, a simple majority to call

witnesses. a two thirds vote for conviction. taker: so it would make's -- take four republicans to join democrats? host: to call witnesses. tookr: i thought that it four of those republicans to vote against trump and throw him out of there. think thatmakes you they can just do him any they want to. in my opinion the senate is saying they can impeach trump but that it would take them to put themselves out of there. i think most of those people in our senate are so corrupt that they do need to be removed. i don't know how to go about doing it. send the military in there and just arrest them. [laughter]

something needs to be done about them. ridiculous that the democrats sit on one side and republicans are on the other, that is what divides the country. host: is there anyone in the senate who you do trust? caller: know, there is not. host: what about your senators and kentucky? mitch mcconnell and rand paul. caller: mitch mcconnell, i am sorry, he seems like a good guy but i remember his first term and we all wanted to throw him out in his first term. all of the things we thought he was doing against us and our , they got shot up real fast and he is the been in there since. host: brenda from kentucky. the editorial board from the new york times takes up the issue of john bolton's testimony today in their lead editorial saying the

senate impeachment trial will be us sham and last top administration officials testified. this is how they and the editorial. hide. trump has nothing to and the decision to withhold aid was based on a concern for national interest then he should be demanding that every administration official involved in the ukraine imagination starting with mr. bolton testify under oath in a senate trial and mitch mcconnell should welcome them. this only strengthens the case that the president is abusing his power. the editorial board of the new york times. diane in ann arbor, michigan, democrat, you are next. caller: here is a thought. trump's number one concern is tuesday in office. bolton has wanted war in iran forever. this is just a theory. into thee pushed trump

assassination with the subpoena that is held over bolton. trump did not want him to testify so instead of going to -- he has host: john bolton came out several days after the death of the iranian general to say that he would testify. guest: because he got what he wanted after the assassination. host: so why do you think john bolton wants to testify now? because it wasr: mentioned this morning -- i think trump is afraid of the blowback from iraq and iran. they were going to pull out of iraq, i don't think bolton like some weirdump for reason reversed that in front of

the whole world. he just recapitulated the whole situation. i think he is making these decisions on pressures from wherever. maybe it is bolton. maybe bolton has enough to say. he is the one that called this a drug deal and made everyone take action. and hee knows a lot could threaten trump's office. he is pushing trump around. host: that is diane in ann arbor, michigan this morning. the lead story in today's washington post talking about the dispute and the back-and-forth yesterday over the troop status in iraq and the headline status of those troops. u.s.ng down reports that troops in iraq are being repositioned in preparation for a possible withdrawal one day after iraqi lawmakers passed a nonbinding resolution calling

all foreign troops to leave the country. -- joint chiefs of staff was released to iraqi officials by the u.s. military command in baghdad. the letter was an unsigned planning draft discussing new deployments that should not have been released. todecision has been made leave iraq. dave is next out of rochester, michigan. a democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. a couple of things that are puzzling me. if this is such a sham and donald is so innocent why in the world what they -- would they not present any witness they could? one of the things that puzzles me is why people want to hear from the whistleblower. the whistleblower pretty much everything he said was validated if you were watching it all, the witnesses that came forward.

what is the whistleblower going to say, i told you so? the whistleblower data trump -- hated trump, it is irrelevant who hated trump. did their hate make donald trump commit crimes or commit misconduct? as the commander-in-chief how he has gone against the intelligence community so blatantly in support of russia. he is our commander-in-chief. he is not listening to his intelligence community. when the cheap intel officer told trump about russia passat interference which is already out there -- with aocally russia cyber attack meddled in our elections and our commander-in-chief is calling in a witchhunt. witnesses towant testify like john bolton would you be ok with republicans in

the senate calling adam schiff and joe biden or hunter biden? caller: why would they be on trial? --ter biden and joe biden there is an appearance of peddling influence which is pretty normal, just ask jared with ther ivanka trump licensing agreements and a half $1 billion loans while china is visiting the white house. w was on three boards when his daddy was president and vice president and received $17 million from harken industries. this is unfortunately the status that has been part of the deal. that is not a crime. if they want to call them -- they did not commit the crimes. the one caller said that adam schiff lied, what did he lie about?

the other thing is the part two of the mueller report, one thousand u.s. prosecutors and half of them were republicans signed on to the blatantt that there was -- six or eight of the charges would have been indictments for anybody -- it was blatantly obstruction of justice and they said it was not even a close call. why didn't the democrats use that? host: time for just one or two more calls. mark in massachusetts. an independent, you are next. caller: good morning, happy new year's. i think that it is about time bolton said something. i think he has a lot to say. i don't know if it is because he has a book deal coming out that he does not want to leak information.

caller frome michigan before me had a lot of pertinent stuff to say. what you read about the joint chiefs of staff -- mark millie releasing that statement that the u.s. draft they are saying -- wants to remove troops from iraq and they go hours later and say it was a mistake. the white house is in complete i think bolton holds the keys and the other witnesses -- the thing about mitch mcconnell is he is smart. his supporters are not that smart. just like trump. the guy is a great showman. he knows the right things to say to rile people up. when you hear what he is talking about is complete lunacy. host: that is mark from massachusetts. 20 more to talk about when it

comes to iran including our next two guests. we will be joined by the brookings institution.

these are public documents,

which can be made available to justify to the public what is happening. take us back to the passage of the war power resolution, what was the reason that it was passed, and what was congress seeking to do. guest: we had a large democratic majority, and a war in southeast asia. democrats with congress in -- democrats in congress with public support, have the support to rein in an imperial tosidency, and the ability wage war without constraint from congress, congress has the power to declare war. that is the context in which

congress has to reassert itself. it is an effort to try to find what is the grounds in which we can reassert our power, and that the president is also the commander-in-chief under the constitution. host: is this a bipartisan of reasserting,ng -- back in 1983? guest: that was what made it remarkable, there was bipartisan support and president nixon vetoed it. so there was two thirds majority to override the president's veto in both chambers, and i can't quite imagine how that would happen today. guest: -- translate the legalese for us, the constitutional powers of the president as commander-in-chief introduced the united states armed forces

into hostilities are exercised only to pursuant to the declaration of war, specific statutory authority, or national emergency created by an attack on the united states, territories, or possessions of the armed forces. host: congress is trite -- guest: congress is trying to lead the conditions in which they think a president might need troops. they are laying out the ways that they think and attack might be justified. otherwise, they are saying you need authorization from congress because we are the war powers. host: what is the difference -- realistically, the constitution does give constitution -- does give congress the power to declare war.

short of the declaration of war, we are in episodes where we have lawmakers and others disagreeing , often congress will write a limited authorization, or an expansive one. in 2001, in the wake of 9/11, or 2002 when the bush administration wanted to attack in iraq. isolatedically, just episodes were congress gives the check, but blank open-ended authorization to reach more -- to wage war. powers in congress as -- is our topic today, sarah binder is with us from the brookings institution. it's a good time to call in with your questions.

she is here to help answer them. for democrats (202) 748-8000, for republicans (202) 748-8001, for independents (202) 748-8002. democrats are promising new legislation to limit president trump specifically when it comes to iran, this is senator tim kaine on the floor yesterday. >> i will state at the -- [video clip] >> i will state my aunt set at the conclusion, the u.s. not be at war with iraq and another war in the middle east would be catastrophic. i recognize that some of my colleagues may have a different point of view. so i speak in the hopes of forging a consensus on at least one issue, that issue is this. if there is to be a war with iran, it should not be initiated by this president, or any president, acting on his or her own. it should only be initiated by vote of congress following an open and public debate in view

of the american people. every member of congress should vote, and be accountable for the question of whether another war in the middle east is a good idea. the demand for congressional accountability is constitutionally required in the unique framework that we have, we pledge to support and defend the principal, it is up to congress to declare war, not the president. if we engage in a war, the odds are high that young american men and women will be killed or injured. some will see their friends killed and injured. some will have the remainder of physicales affected by and emotional injuries, post-traumatic stress, the pain of losing friends. and their families and friends will bear the scars. if we are to order our troops and their families to run that risk, it should be based on a public consensus as reflected in an open congressional debate and

vote. and of congress debates the matter in full view of the public, and reaches the conclusion that war is necessary, so be it. even if i were to vote no, the majority of my colleagues voted yes i would agree that the decision to go to war was a legitimate basis to order our best and brightest into harm's way. host: tim kaine on the floor of the senate, sarah binder, what can democrats do and not do when it comes to limiting the president's warmaking ability. --ability? guest: they could go down a legislative path, or a public path. what senator kaine is doing, and what we will see in the house, is to follow the requirements under the war powers resolution, which lays out a series of steps by which congress could challenge the president's decision to commit troops into hostility. ,hat he is suggesting they do

under the war powers resolution, each chamber has to consider what we call a joint resolution of disapproval. which in essence would tell the you have 30 days to keep those troops, and then to bring them back home. the house would have to pass it, the senate would have to pass law,f protected under the it gives some ramp to the senate floor so republicans cannot just block it. there will be votes according to the way that laws works. law works today, is that the president has an opportunity to sign or veto a resolution blocking his waging of war in iran against iran. and then it would be a question of overcoming the veto. guest: absolutely. most observers don't expect too many republican votes, although

republicans in the house earlier, back in 2019, in the abstract, voted to say there should not be funds for president to wage war in iran. host: you mentioned the action in the house, elissa slotkin from michigan is leading that trip, she served multiple terms in the middle east under democratic and republican administrations. callers,t with a few sydney, in connecticut, a republican, good morning. binder, thank you for your input, i appreciate your explanation of the war powers act, i have a question for you, what's the difference between what president trump did , and what president obama did, taking out qaddafi? i feel like there's a total lack

of grace, and i think the polarization -- i just don't fairif there could be any -- when it comes to stripping the president of his power to act unilaterally without congressional authority. question,t's a great because it's complicated. lawyers,s, lawmakers, and white house lawyers have disagreed about what are comparable cases. even in the cases where there was bombing of libya under nato , those wereospices contentious as well and there is a question as to whether those should come under the auspices of the war powers resolution. there is no easy answer. but it there -- but there is a case that supporters want to do

their best to insulate presidents and say that the war powers resolution does not apply in particular circumstances. , whichts to the legalese luckily i'm not trained to go into. these are point out, political questions for the rest ,f us and they are tough ones because they can be interpreted in all sorts of different ways. holland, michigan, on the democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning. we support president trump, he's based in reality, they have nuclear weapons in venezuela, this is like october 1962. they cannot tie our president's hands, we have to have a strong presidency and we have to support our presidency and the military. that's my comment. thank you. do you see parallels to

the cuban missile crisis? hard-pressedd be to draw these lines and weave them together. but keep in mind, that in periods of polarization we are much less likely to see the rally around the president that the listener first two. with the suggestion that we rally around the president in times of war, we do see that historically but less and less because partisans disagree about the president's actions and priorities. host: when did that start? guest: it's hard to know when it started relative to the event, certainly attacks on pearl harbor and 9/11 was probably the most salient episode that most of us have in our minds. and that unity of action lasted in the capital for a little

while, with measures tightly related to the war and response to 9/11. but it dissipated pretty quickly , the farther you got from questions of war, the patriot act and so forth, these internal divisions began to emerge quickly. host: having a conversation on war powers in congress with , a political science professor at george washington university. having this conversation on a day when house and senate leaders are said to be briefed on the administration's actions when it comes to iran, and a day before senators and house members are expected to be briefed. that is expected to take place tomorrow. the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff are expected to be on that briefing along with mike pompeo, mark esper, gina haspel are all expected to come to the hill tomorrow. if you have questions this morning about war powers, now is a good time to call in.

this is linda, out of ohio, on the republican line. good morning. caller: sarah, on confused on a few things -- i'm confused on a few things. you definitely have to have congress if you're going to war, the american people have the right to know that. but when you have to do a strike because somebody's going to take a bunch of americans out, why can't the president have the right to do that? he doesn't have time to ask congress. can you explain that to me? you're doing a very good job of what you're explaining. guest: excellent. that's actually covered in the war powers resolution, giving the president 48 hours which can be long or short depending upon what exactly is going on, but it gives the president 48 hours to send notification to congress. he is supposed to consult prior, to give advanced warning, but

with the law wants is within 48 hours to be told what the justification, why is this happening, and how long will it last? so there is some recognition in the law that the president cannot have their hands tied behind their backs, but congress aims to bring congress into those deliberations. host: senator lindsey graham on twitter yesterday, right around noon, i will oppose any war powers resolution pushed by speaker pelosi so as to allow this president to have latitude that he needs, the last thing america needs is 535 commanders in chief, americans elected one. guest: senator graham is expressing a view that many lawmakers in the abstract probably agree with, we don't expect congress to be commanders in chief. and we see that in part, when

was the last time they passed authorization for use of force? 2001. and many lawmakers say why don't we rewrite that authorization? you heard senator kaine saying that yesterday. it's time to talk about an authorized use of force. but the sentiment is that congress should be -- should not be waging war and making tactical decisions, i don't think there's disagreement but there is -- these are momentous decisions and presidents do better when they have popular mechanism ina key our system is for lawmakers to take stands and deliberate on it so they can be accountable for those decisions. pass?why is it so hard to why has it been 17 years? guest: lawmakers i think don't want their fingerprints on tough decisions if things go wrong. they really think it's much better for them, lytic leak, to

blame the administration when things go wrong or rally with them. that really undermines congress's role in the ability of the public to have some say in whether or not military troops get put into harms way. in midvale,s casey, utah, on the democrat line. caller: good morning, first-time collar, thank you for having me. my question is, how does the role, the office of the president and the power of the president expanded during declarations of war in our country? guest: keep in mind that under the constitution, the president is the commander-in-chief. there is the expectation that the administration is in full command of the logistics and strategy of war. so if we were in a situation

where congress actually votes for a of war, it is essentially the public authorization, the public justification to allow the president to go forward. hard tonding that it's constrain commanders, even in the absence of a declaration of war. , in new hampshire, on the independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. ever since world war i, the assassination of a high official is an unambiguous declaration of the president just unlawfully declared war comments against the law for him to do that. we need to let the world know that this president is rogue, he does not represent the people, the people have the authority to declare war, not the president and we need to let the world know that we are trying, we are going to the processing congress to take him out. i ran come if you are listening, i hope you can find the courage and do us a favor, you'd be richly rewarded by the press.

how is that for parity? guest: very strong feelings waged by this president and this issue of the general and what to do with regards to iran. and these questions of the legality, even the definition of what is an assassination, prohibited under executive contested, which is an area i can't go into. this is complicated. what constitutes imminent threat? we have heard this term when it comes to what happened last week with the general. what ease and imminent threat? how is it defined? guest: it would not be in the constitution, we get into the white house lawyers and how that happened. but the concept is quite

understandable, even though it may be that u.s. troops have not been attacked recently, there is a sense or intelligence suggests that it could be upon us shortly. host: this was robert o'brien earlier today in the white house driveway, the national security advisor, asking if the imminent threat is gone in the wake of the killing of the iranian general? [video clip] >> as long as there are bad actors in the world, there are threats to americans and the iranians have been making many threats over the past several days. we take them seriously and we are monitoring. we hope that we have sent a message that that will not be well received. that they think twice about attacking america and its interests. host: if there are always threats to americans because there are bad actors, are there always imminent threats? guest: i think that is part of

what trust -- frustrates gemma craddock lawmakers -- democratic lawmakers. they want this in a nonclassified document so it can be shared and discussed. one of the difficulties in knowing why, when, and under what circumstances the war powers act can be implemented and followed, and when should the power -- the president have more leeway as the constitution gives both branches powers, it's very difficult and it does not get any easier to make those choices. the two branches and the two parties have different views about how to react in the circumstances. host: john, on the republican line, in new jersey. caller: good morning. once again, trump has been underrated, he fainted and deferred action on some minor provocation and went big when it counted.

imagine this general getting in his car and saying when are we going to have dinner? next thing he's obliterated. beyond that, sarah, your assessment, i don't think i ran -- iran is capable of waging war against america, i think they understand and respect power. that is the way it is in the middle east. guest: you tapped into what i think is one of the big discussion topics surrounding the attack, what and how will the iranians respond? on what time will they respond? and what has the administration done to anticipate those responses? what strategy is in place? that in particular, even that previous president of both parties, have had that --ortunity to illuminate eliminates the general, but the

question is why didn't they? what's different this time with this particular president? host: we have 15 minutes left with sarah binder and you can keep calling in on our phone lines, for democrats (202) 748-8000, for republicans (202) 748-8001, for independents (202) 748-8002. i want to shift gears a little bit to talk about a topic from our last segment, senator josh awley of missouri introduced resolution to dismiss the articles of impeachment for lack of prosecution, saying at the house needs to transmit them within 25 days or they can be dismissed. i wonder your thoughts on the senate's ability to do that in a process that is laid out in the constitution? senate, it seems, and as senator majority leader mcconnell says, the senate cannot hold a trial of

impeaching the president if it does not have the articles of impeachment from the house. that's not spelled out in the constitution. and it's not spelled out in the senates roles, except indirectly. but there is an impeachment case unless the house doesn't send them over. so the senators trying to find a way to get around and acquit the president. , even ifwould require it happened, they would have to make it up. they would have to create a role that would allow them to have a trial. because under the in impeachment trial role, that trial begins, it's precipitated when the articles and the managers walk into the chamber. in the absence of that move, the senate impeachment rules don't apply. there is no trial. so republicans i think are

struggling. i don't think many people anticipated, i did not anticipate that the speaker would hold onto the articles and use them to try to have some leverage over the shape of that senate trial. that's what i think is going on here when you see discussions of senate republicans trying to change the rules in the way that would allow them to have a trial. but without the articles, does not seem to me that there's actually the ability to have a trial. do you have thoughts on what a fair trial looks like? and the idea of using the same rules set up for the clinton impeachment for a trump impeachment, is that fair? guest: fairness is in the eye of the holder. sometimes the holder wears red clothes or blue clothes. argument, as suggested, why don't they use the rules negotiated for the clinton trial? host: that's what mitch mcconnell was arguing yesterday.

guest: a democratic response might be that was a republican inate which had an interest prosecuting an impeachment trial against a democratic president. but this context is politically different for the current republican majority because it's the president of their own party and their interest this time is in dismissing the trial quickly without witnesses. theynitial agreement reached in 1999 in a bipartisan basis was we will have a certain amount of time for the two sides and there will be a motion to dismiss. then we will consider motions on .itnesses the republicans in 1999 set it up to say that there would be some consideration. is that fair's fair? are republicans willing to do that this time? it's not clear, special

yesterday's news that john bolton wants to testify and is willing to testify. it's not clear where republicans are on witnesses. so what's fair? politicians decide what's fair and a dozen often resemble anything that what you and i would think of as fair. host: sam is in washington, d.c., an independent, good morning. caller: good morning and good morning to your guest. one of the points your guest brought up is the justification for war. country has our used false justification. crisishis manufactured seems to be a deflection from the impeachment. generality is that the

who decimated isis. al-baghdadi isnk laughing in his grave for us to get rid of him, because you would see the black flag all over. ,e have that journalist standing for christians in iraq and syria. so the phony media that fox and they areof it -- refusing to tell us the truth about this guy. host: echoing some of what we've heard from iran's foreign minister immediately after the killing was reported, the foreign minister pointing out that the general had efforts against isis and al qaeda and others. guest: the issue, in part, is what will be the consequences,

does it dissolve the coalition which has been fighting isis even though isis is quite diminished? what are the consequences there? and it points to this question about why previous administrations, who had the opportunity to go after this in part but did not, because of the recent the caller raised. in some ways, u.s. interests were advanced by having the general in place and helping to fight a common enemy of isis. and it's complicated, and non-iranian experts, myself included, it's hard to understand. this is not black-and-white, it's hard to know what the right path is for the administration. i think that's why critics have said what are you going to do now and have you thought about all of these potential ramifications? democrat, from

st. petersburg, florida. thank god for c-span, number one. it's amazing, and the reason i called is because a caller called in on the democratic line and said this president was going rogue. i'm a democrat, i support the president. there are a lot of democrats like me that are frustrated with our party, and support our excellenton doing the job is doing for our country, as far as our economy, jobs, and so worth. program,ate this because it gives every caller the opportunity to call in. but i want the callers to also know there are plenty of democrats that support this president, and it shouldn't go into politics.

it should be representing our country and what's the best interest, and how do you get these politicians to stay out of politics and represent american interests? i will take my answer off the line. thank you for c-span. host: anything you want to respond to? guest: i think the heart of the problem is what is the national interest? what should be in the political interest of the u.s.? haven'tisagree and we elected a divided house, senate, congress, and presidency. and it's no surprise that people come to these questions with different perspectives. these are hard questions. host: a divided house and senate, i want to point your viewers to your review of 2019 with your piece in the washington post, where viewers can find your articles. more than just this one, but this one, congress is 2019 look

startling in the rearview mirror, here are the four key takeaways. what are those takeaways from the last year at the start of this new year? guest: a few things about the last year that we can take away -- sometimes we have the notion that divided government is good in the sense that it requires the parties to walk to the edge of the cliffs, hold hands, and jump off together to make tough choices. but this congress did not do that, most divided congress is don't do that. because these parties are so polarized that they walk to the edge of the cliff, and neither party holds hands, they want to push the other one over and nothing gets done three so think about the big issues. change, immigration, prescription jugs -- drugs, the cost of higher ed, yet no action on most of those issues because the parties really have very

different incentives and views about reaching agreement. so divided government is tough, that's for sure. there's a lot of hardball going rules far enough to get what you want. the president has done it by telling his staff and former staff thou shalt not testify and have absolute immunity when democratic house wanted to investigate ukraine and other issues. the president has played hardball, and speaker pelosi, and respect, is now playing hardball as well. just because the house and peaches, when are you going to send the articles over? sign for theeat capacity of congress and the president to put aside differences, or at least recognize their differences and find a way to get to the bargaining table on issues that most of the public could use some resolution.

it was not a pretty congress, for sure. host: less than 10 minutes left with sarah binder, if you want to see her work from the workings institution, it's on their website, and she can be found on twitter. and you can give us a call like bill, out of wisconsin, and independent. the morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, bill. about is iranhear , all after our military iran has to do is go after president trump's property, and when they go after president every neighbory, is in danger. that's why president clinton, president obama, and president

bush, did not do what stupid trump did. chicago, put people in new york, new jersey, florida, put alltoronto, he has trouble.neighbors in they could be killed by a stupid thing a stupid president did. kyle, out of new york, a republican. caller: good morning, i love the show, thank you for letting me come through. so much has happened since i dialed in, to the gentleman that democratsn, maybe the blocking trump tower will let people live their lives and stay clear instead of blocking it. i love that woman from florida. it's comforting to know that there are democrats that stand

with what this president is doing with the country. because the analyst that's on right now, i'd like to do some analyzing on what was going on during the obama administration and where we would be if we were following his criteria. i don't understand why everything has to be referred to as earlier or previously. when qaddafi was assassinated it was during obama's call. there were prices to pay, maybe we are still waiting for the shoe to drop on that. what about if we analyze what would happen if this general lived. he had a lot of plans and promises to hurt people and he had done enough in his history that we needed to be violent. what are we supposed to do? send in another hundred $50 billion and let them keep the forklifts?

it's getting ridiculous. you can't fix broken. we need to get out, it's not about a regime change, which is what obama did. we sent a strong message, and he needs to either play well with others or he will not be able to play. think the caller puts his finger on the pulse of the trump administration and part of their views about the situation in the middle east, trump does not appear to like what had been the status quo, did not like the cost to the u.s., did not like how it was playing out. that was what was on the ground. i think the question is what happens when you upset the status quo, things can get worse. that's what democratic lawmakers are trying to raise. republican lawmakers are saying this was an important move and they say the previous president did not have the guts to do it. but the question remains, what's the strategy going forward?

that's what lawmakers want to hear more about. host: the caller and the washington times brings us some of the history of the interactions between congress and the white house and trying to limit war powers. two paragraphs in the washington times, when president obama ordered the u.s. to provide air cover as part of the international operation that acid -- ousted qaddafi, republicans attempted to block him but failed, the later deployment to syria as an escalation to the war on terrorism drew more complaints but no resolution. mr. trump faced an attempt to limit his commitment of u.s. assistance to the saudi backed war effort in yemen. a war powers resolution restraining the president actually passed both chambers of congress for the first time ever , but mr. trump vetoed it and it was easily sustained, leaving him a free hand to it aid to the saudi effort. tost: there has been efforts implement and try to restrain

the president through the war powers resolution. oftentimes, the presidents have not allowed the constitutionality of the war powers and often say like the libya example, the obama administration said those circumstances don't apply. but lawmakers can say it applies and that's what you see in these episodes. one thing to keep in mind, when the law was written in the no requirementas that the president sign or veto the resolution blocking troops. it was a legislative veto. congress could act and say time troops and ifose that version were still in place, it might have changed their votes. year, there was a bipartisan majority to stop .unding the saudi's in yemen

the supreme court decision in the 1980's x doubt all of those legislative vetoes -- text -- x'ed out those legislative vetoes not -- vetoes. so that if we are writing out a resolution commending the president to bring troops home the bill has to go to the president and presidents will not sign laws that tell them to remove troops. host: outside of war powers resolutions, where else to the legislative veto exist? this isost recently, part of the national emergencies act, the mechanism under which the president decided that he could take funds, and allocate them from pentagon money and homeland security and treasury money, and allocate them to building the border wall. he used the national emergencies act, which was written with one of those legislative vetoes allowing the house and senate to say no, you cannot move that

around. the house and senate passed that resolution. it's embedded in quite a number of laws, the intentions of lawmakers in the 1970's, really those laws might have been passable but are not anymore, other than raising public awareness of what the administration is doing and what lawmakers are doing. host: christine, thank you for holding, in illinois, a democrat. caller: i think it's really sad and scary government type think the same way as bureaucratic government democrats and they think the same as twitter-crats, and they believe cnn. you start believing each ,ther's bulk wrap -- bull crap

it is scary. the twitter democrats are not the same as the government. like the bernie brose, but they'll blame each other. and i think that is scary that if you get a group of people who thinks too much alike, because twitter-crats are nothing like the government people or the bernie brose. that's all i wanted to say. host: any thoughts on clinical discourse, twitterverse, and groupthink? guest: both parties have hard-core partisans who rally around particular candidates and elected officials. that type of intensity of partisanship, that's not dissipating anytime soon. , from theh binder brookings institute, you can line and sarahon is on twitter. up next, cato institute foreign

policy expert william ruger will join us to discuss the escalating u.s.-iran tensions. stick around. ♪ >> the impeachment of president trump, continue to follow the process on c-span, leading to a senate trial. coverage onered c-span, on at c-span.org/impeachment, and listen on the free c-span radio app. my name is adam cook, i am a studentcam winner from 2018 and i am here to encourage you to wrap up this competition as the deadline is getting close. but you still have time.

this is actually about the time that i started filming my documentary the first year that i answered -- entered. i'm in the d.c. offices now, this was an incredible opportunity for me to express my thoughts and views about the political climate in the current day, as well as some local and state leaders. i'm extremely excited that you are all interested in this and pursuing this because it's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. still time for you to enter the videocam competition, you have until january 20 to create a five to six minute documentary that underscores an issue the -- you want presidential candidates to address in 2020. we are giving away a grand prize of $5,000. for more information go to our website. ♪ campaign 2020, watch our

continuing coverage of the presidential candidates on the campaign trail and make up your own mind as the voting begins next month, watch our live coverage of the iowa caucuses on monday, february 3. campaign 2020, your unfiltered view of politics. washington journal continues. host: william ruger's and afghanistan war veteran who now studies and writes about foreign policy the cato institute, at the charles koch institute, there are tensions between the u.s. and iran and they have reached new heights. a simple question with a complicated answer, how did we get here? guest: because we are on an escalatory spiral. a big part of this is that the united states decided to push , includingm pressure

getting united states out of the joint comprehensive plan of action, the iran deal. that meant that we were putting pressure on the iranian government, and the iranian government decided to respond in various ways. through proxies and other things. we have seen a spiral. if you think back over the last couple of years, you have had the tanker tax in the gulf, the attack on the saudi oil facilities, the tightening of the sanctions, you have also aen this contractor death and ratcheting up of these tensions. the worry that a lot of people have is that we are on a spiral .owards a hot war the question is, what's next? in international politics you have to talk about how the enemy gets a vote, the other side gets a vote, and a big part of this is how will iran respond? it's hard to say.

you've heard people talking and iran about a military strike on a military target. but who knows, that could be bluster. host: a column in today's usa with therk dupre wits foundation for defense of democracy, saying the killing was part of the maximum pressure strategy. did you view what happened last thursday as part of the maximum pressure strategy that you were talking about? guest: we heard that this was something in response to an imminent danger to americans. if it was part of a maximum pressure campaign, that suggests it was something planned much longer, that would take some of the steam out of the argument that it was immanence that required this to happen quickly and without the consultation we would have wished for. host: mark esper, mike pompeo and others coming to capitol

hill to brief lawmakers, senior lawmakers getting a briefing today. what questions should they be asking? guest: they should be asking what is the plan forward? there is going to be some about the intelligence and so forth, we should be focusing on what next. the united states does not have a strong interest in continuing in these middle eastern conflicts. the president has talked about ending endless wars, yet here we are ratcheting up. so the question, what are american interests here? are they limited question mark i think they are -- are they limited? i think they are, our most important interest in the gulf is to make sure that there is no effect to long-term oil supplies. is it necessary for the united states to stay and fix the political problems in these regimes that are going through transitions? that have been roiled by

activities in the gulf for a long time? including the war against iraq that really upset things? when people talk about iranian influence and what to be have to be worried about? that was cooked in once you toppled saddam. another question is what do you do? areink our interests limited, and therefore doesn't require the united states to try to do regime change, peacefully or otherwise in iran. thehave heard about discussion for peaceful regime change, but then you see john bolton, talking about something that seems more aggressive on twitter. so really the question is what is the endgame? for these advisors it might be different. some may my -- some may want maximal list activity, to strike iran, that's what was suggested by john bolton.

others may want to move beyond this, you have heard people, including that leaked memo or whatever that was yesterday which was quite confusing to people in washington, but ultimately it showed that this was not going to be the policy going forward. but what people want to do? hit this general and now deescalate? or escalate to the next level and push regime change? is ourwilliam ruger guest, if you want to join the conversation, for democrats (202) 748-8000, for republicans (202) 748-8001, for independents (202) 748-8002. we them ruger, with the charles koch institute and the cato institute studying foreign policy, also a war veteran, when did you serve in afghanistan to mark -- afghanistan? andt: i was there in 2008

2009, general mccarron was there and you saw an increase in american forces after he was replaced. it was a learning experience. i am proud to have served my country. of thefter the death general, you released a statement saying the u.s. should use this to extricate itself from middle east entanglements. what does that look like? where should we be leaving? guest: the two for most places are syria and afghanistan. afghanistan is the case in which the president and his team have been working to find a way to extricate ourselves out of that quagmire. the fact is, we should be proud of what we did in afghanistan for america's safety. we have three main goals when we to treat al qaeda as

a terrorist organization that could hit america after 9/11. we needed to punish the taliban for their state sponsorship of al qaeda. and we needed to kill or capture osama bin laden. we have achieved those goals. but the war aims expanded and it became more about creating a central government in kabul and throughout the country. it became about promoting american values, changing the nature of afghan society. the difficulty is that some of those ends were at odds with each other. and some of those are just unrealizable. part of that is a hubris about what american power can achieve. we have a can-do military and if they are asking you to do something you will try to do it and they do a great job, but there are some things even the american military can't solve. remaking afghan society is one of those. when i was there, some people thought we could really change

afghan culture quickly. i think that's really misguided, and i did at the time. some ways, because we have been stuck there and it has cost us a lot of blood and treasure, that hypothesis has been tested. host: somewhere between 50000 and 80,000 u.s. troops, here are some recent numbers, afghanistan has 14,000 u.s. troops, bahrain has 7000, more than 5000 in iraq, jordan close to 3000, kuwait more than 13,000, oman 700 troops, saudi arabia anywhere around 3000 troops, syria at this point less than a thousand, turkey has an undisclosed number and several u.s. bases in the united arab emirates has 5000. what should the numbers be?

maybe not by country but in terms of total troops in the region to keep the u.s. safe and had the u.s. to the influence it has, but also extricate us from some of these places? guest: it goes back to that point, safety. everything we do should be related to america's safety and conditions for economic prosperity. if it has to do with the security of other allies in the region, we have to ask ourselves , do those things tear up? a place like syria, the united states should go to zero. we should not have troops. it's not the job of the united states government to protect the kurds. it's not the united states's job and aiate between turkey partnership we had with kurdish groups. sharein many ways do not the values that we do. and it's not our job to try to

change the government of syria. our job was to try to decimate isis, which we believed was a threat to the united states, that job is done. what's left can be done by those local actors who share an interest, which is why you saw people coming together for that mission. now we need to extricate ourselves. largely because our american military is not meant to adjudicate political disputes which are not necessarily connected to our security and safety. brad, out of minnesota, a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. pickle, but a lot of someems from negotiating years back and wanting to have .uch a great deal we had an iranian deal that

congress was not going to approve, then obama decided that he was going to take it on its , there he made the deal were more votes against the iranian deal than what it took to pass the aca. so now we are in a real bad position. we have a president that went right around congress and decided to do his own thing. but in that agreement he made is that -- they make it sound like it was such a great deal and a great thing for us, but it wasn't, there were two those irn were you would build a nuclear weapon and do your nuclear testing. those are two areas that were never going to be inspected by come back when they saying it was such a great deal, it was not a great deal. host: we got your point.

guest: the fact is that diplomacy is the art of the possible. it is true. try to secure deals where you don't get everything you want, but you try to get what you can and what you need. not a perfect deal, but it did attempt and slow down the ability of iran to become a nuclear power. from everything i have read about this, from the international atomic energy agency as well as our partners and allies, this was having an impact, and then when we got out of it, the problem is it set us on this motion towards greater conflict as opposed to trying to slowly resolve some of his challenges we have had in our relationship going all the way back to the 1950's with iran.

challengelong-running would have had, and it was not something that was going to get perfected overnight. that is one of the things about diplomacy. it is that inch by inch slow process of trying to find ways to build confidence with each trust where some both sides get something out of the deal so that then you can move to something that will hopefully secure a broader peace. sometimes interests collide. we don't all share the same values or have the same interests. some things are zero-sum. the fact was this was an attempt to get there. was it perfect? it was trying to get there. we are having the talk of war right now instead of job. host: democrat, good morning.

caller: good morning. i hope i have a simple question. iraq tobeen told by leave the country. at first we said we were leaving . then we said we were not. is it legal for us to stay because we have been asked to leave? guest: that is a great question. one of the things about the is that insue international politics, it is an environment. there is no higher governing authority that can force actors to live up to what they have agreed to or what people considered to be the international legal structure. it is a state system, and states are the ultimate arbiters of their own interests and security and whether they comply. in the case of respecting state sovereignty, you have seen this

all the way back to 1648 when the treaty of west failure formally codified this norm. host: what was that treaty about? guest: what is interesting is it is relevant today. what you have in the 30 years war from 6018 to 1648 is a massive conflagration throughout europe that killed up to one third of the population of central europe at the time. they said we have to get to a situation where we are not intervening in the affairs of other countries. it codified the notion of sovereignty, that essentially his king, his religion. these were essentially religious wars. one principality was not going to try to dictate what religion was practiced in another one or who was going to rule or the

domestic politics of that other place. it was essentially going to be a peace treaty around we will do our thing, you do your thing. as long as we don't engage in aggression against each other, we can live in that situation. the u.s. has been someone who has largely rejected some of that framework over the last 20 years. when we have seen a campaign against rogue nations, at the end of the cold war, people were looking around for another mission for the u.s. the rogue nation doctrine emerged. we were going to go after countries that we believed were led by rogue dictators that would threaten international peace and stability. since 9/11, we have engaged in those things, in some cases because we believed our safety was threatened, and in other cases because we were trying to promote our values. think of libya. libya is a place where we violated libyan sovereignty

stenciling to protect people in the eastern portion of the country. that led to a regime change war. libya is a basket case. in. have flowed efforts-intentioned were undermined. the spirit of this system was valuable because it understood that things could get out of control if states were going to intervene in the affairs of other states. we have seen this in syria and iraq. currently 800 u.s. military bases in more than 70 countries and territories around the world at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars a year. what would you propose? what makes us safe? guest: a lot of those are necessary. we need to have a military that is second to none that can determine countries -- deter

countries from trying to harm our interests. i'm not someone that thinks the world would be peaceful if we just left it alone. there are real dangers in the .orld that we need to confront nuclear weapons are a big part of that when it comes to state actors. having special operations forces and intelligence community that is keeping track of terrorist organizations that have the intent and capability to harm us, that is important. some of these missions like in syria, are they necessary? things like iraq, if iraq does not want us there, and if our presence is creating more headaches for america's security and interests, maybe we should be getting out of there as well. afghanistan is another case where we have met our goals largely. we can pull out because the costs are greater than the benefits we are reaping. this is not about disengaging.

we can engage in productive ways. trade is one way where there are mutually unofficial agreements that happened between countries. diplomacy, using our diplomatic corps in the state department to russell with some of these -- restle with some of these challenges. in california, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. mr. rogerke to thank for his statement because the president we have right now is starting to sound so dangerous. he is everything not what mr. roger has mentioned about being diplomatic and all the other engagement on a reasonable -- all i know is that when i hear

of what president trump has now ine of leading us into war, just want to let you know that there are a lot of americans out there that are fearful. host: do you have a definition of what the trump doctrine is? guest: that is the $64,000 question right now. some people would have said before this that maybe he has some instincts towards a more restrained approach to the world in terms of reducing america's commitments, ending endless wars, but also being top and gh and tryingtou to cut through and engage in personal diplomacy as we saw .ith kim in some ways because of tough rhetoric that may have set us back temporarily, but also because there has been a freeze

in many ways because washington has been resistant to change in many ways. i think some part of that is there. on the other hand, what we saw with soleimani is not an example of restraint. that is an example of taking a gamble. we will see what happens. does this mean we have escalation, or does this serve as deterrence against the iranian regime? office,eld one elected the library trustee in my hometown. i'm not sure that sets me up for being president. host: where are you from? guest: i'm from plastic on, new hampshire, proud grayness stater. host: william roger taking your calls. this is linda in new york. democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. ump should have never gotten

out of the iranian nuclear deal. president obama got the ball rolling. it might not have been perfect, but he also, just like with the affordable care act, it might need to between or changed -- be tweaked or changed, but at least you have a base to start with. , his rhetoric, his knee-jerk responses are many for many americans -- are very scary for many americans. there seems to be no connect between the executive and the defense department with this draft going out. we made a mistake. this is not kindergarten. that seems how it is running. guest: it is easy to monday morning quarterback the defense

department, the state department, the administration. governing is difficult. in many ways this was imprudent. we have been making imprudent decisions for 30 years in foreign policy. i don't think this is particular to right now. i think the u.s. for 30 years has been engaging in activities that has undermined security. if you think back to the own goal of myate goa adult life, that would be the iraq war. this was fought under pretenses that i am surprised people.. people bought. we did not need to do that. we unleashed a lot of difficulties in the region we did not need to. iran's influence in iraq is a direct result of toppling saddam

hussein. if you think about the changes we have seen in the middle east and west africa, a lot of those changes are a result of our activity in iraq and afghanistan. missouri, bill, independent. caller: good morning. think you for taking my call. i agree on the iraq war. what i don't understand is why the congress jumped all over the president for what he did? he was an iranian general, i agree, but he was one of or the top terrorist organizers in the world. ban.roke the travel let's wait and see what our

if he wasto say lining up another terrorist attack somewhere. the president took action, got rid of him. now i think it is time for congress, instead of jumping all over him, now it is time for congress to give him the war power authority act. is my thinking wrong? guest: i don't think anybody should mourn the death of general soleimani. this is someone who had been a thorn in the u.s.'s side. you can understand the motivations of iran, but that does not necessarily mean the u.s. should be happy about that or sad when you see us hit some of those people that are for some of the challenges we faced in iraq. you can disagree with the war in iraq and not want to see harm done to americans.

i think that is an important distinction between disagreeing with actions of american foreign-policy and whether we should want us to achieve our goals when we get into these. in afghanistan, i have a lot of problems with our approach, the counterinsurgency approach. a lot of soldiers did and do. everybody has been trying hard to meet those goals. a is important to separate critique of american foreign-policy, our maximum pressure campaign, and whether we should have sympathy for this iranian. host: do you think this somehow authorizationirst of the use of military force in 17 years? guest: it doesn't seem like there is a lot of enthusiasm for war around the country or on capitol hill. the democratic house is talking

about trying to limit the president rather than giving him some blank check or more limited authorization. i would be surprised. you don't know. counterattacks and american forces are harmed, you could see a call for a more forceful response. that is why i think we need to get off this escalate or a letter. ory ladder. iran really think war with at this point in history is ?oing to be a good thing russia is a basket case. it is not a great power, but china is a bigger concern. the administration wanted to push that way just like obama

did with the pivot to asia, but we have been unable to extricate ourselves from these quagmires in the middle east. i don't think there is a lot of desire to seek ourselves in deeper. roger, vicem president of policy and research at the charles koch institute, and with us this morning taking your phone calls. richard is in new york, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. mr. roger, i want to ask if you that we might get back to past -- but ashe a veteran of a previous war, i want to ask whether it be public can ask for a return to the day in foreign-policy when politics ended at the waters edge so that foreign-policy was a bipartisan matter and to raise the stakes

further, we got back to the situation where congress embraces its authority to make foreign-policy and delivers a foreign-policy or outline of a foreign-policy as to when we go to war and when we don't, when we have diplomatic encounters and when we don't. if we could get back to the toes that are attributed colin powell that when we do go to war, unlike what george w. bush did in 2003 when we have allies, we have public support, a massive force, and we have an objective, and we get out when it is over. we see presidents of both in and beingling duplicitous about what they say they are doing, whether it was lyndon johnson or president

obama and hillary clinton in bush in iraqge w. to topple saddam hussein without a clear plan of what came afterwards. host: thank you for the call. guest: these are some great questions from the caller. you mentioned the colin powell doctrine. that is a better approach to war making them what we have seen. the issue of congress being a coequal branch of government is an important one. article one of the constitution puts congress in the driver's seat when it comes to warmaking. ,nfortunately, for a long time all the way back to the beginning of the cold war or even earlier, you have seen an erosion of congressional power in this area. you might say this is because of grasping,ive branch

but it has also been with complicity of congress. congress has wanted in some ways inabrogate its authority this area. i think it is a real dereliction of duty. congress should be willing to stand up and take votes on whether we go to war. framerse or's vision -- vision was that there would be -- around these decisions. the fact that congress has simply allowed the exact a branch to make all these decisions, and you could say there was some training in in the 1970's with the war powers resolution, but the problem with the war powers resolution is not what a lot of in-service say, which is that it ties the hands of the president, which violates articletwo powers, but two is not clear about what the powers of the president are, but

article one is very clear. i think the war powers resolution is that it actually gives up too much power to the executive branch. why should the president be allowed to engage in conflict abroad that is not merely defensive without congress authorizing that when there is not in minutes? with the constitution does allow the u.s. is being attacked him the president has the ability to repel. in syria, there is an unauthorized war. there's not a question of time that if we don't do something up. new york goes host: if william roger was to rewrite the war powers resolution, what would you do? guest: is some of that necessary? should we be harkening back to article one section eight? host: that congress has the

ability to declare war? guest: not just the ability, but that is its power. our system of government is one in which there are enumerated powers that each of the branches get. it is not as if the constitution is silent on that. is the congress should be in the driver seat on declaring war. the president makes war. the court has decided to essentially stay out of these fights. in a variety of court cases during the cold war when a lot of the started to come to the four, it's sort of hunted on of puntedre, it sort on this. congress only has blunt instruments to deal with the executive branch. it can engage in impeachment. that is an extremely blunt

instrument. rebuildways we need to a culture in which the american public expects its representatives to engage on these issues and hold them accountable. foreign-policy is not a pocketbook issue. a lot of americans don't pay much attention to it. the cues for a lot of the cold is he isost-cold war the commander in chief, so the president should deal with this. if something goes wrong, congress can complain. saying, yes, i authorized the war in human, and look what it has led to. host: this is duncan, a democrat. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. years iner veteran, 22 the u.s. army, i am deeply

concerned with what is going on in our country in regards to deploying our soldiers, military members. it is a really sad deal when mr. roger spoke so openly about our branches of government and the way they are supposed to work. me thatreally sadright now, ito we have a one-man band dictating that willle thing take place in our nation. i was a drill sergeant at fort benning here several years. that we areung kids deploying in harms way. to defend ourath , andry and nation for harm

our politicians feel they need to, but going back to our branches of government, when our -- we are in deep trouble. it is a serious matter. guest: this is one way to honor the sacrifice our veterans make, the ultimate sacrifice that some may, but also the sacrifice of their membersg deployed, having to fight in s harryften time scenarios, making sure we are only sending americans into harms way when it is absolutely necessary. i think our approach over the

last 30 years has gotten away from that. too often people in washington have been willing to send men and women from across the country into these situations without a clear strategy, appreciating the alternative approaches. it is the easy button, if you will. i think the afghan papers that the washington post published recently shows you some of the at the the core -- rot core of our strategic decision-making. host: what was the worst example from that series of reports? guest: look at what the inspector general talked about, where it was very clear that there was massive waste, that there was not a clear sense of how we were going to achieve our goals. aud the inspector for making sure he was keeping the eye on what was happening there so we

had a better accounting of this. one of the challenges when you have such a huge defense industry, when you include the defense department's budget plus veterans care and other parts of departmente in the of energy, you are talking a trillion dollar budget, it is really hard pressed to have accountability around those kinds of numbers. for a long time the pentagon was not able to appropriately and effectively audit itself. an audit is not going to fix the problem. is anggest problem american culture that sees us as needing to be engaged everywhere and shape and dictate the nature of the international system at great cost and in a way that does not match up to our most pressing challenges. host: john socko has been on c-span 26 times, including

several times on this program, including may last year when he came on to talk about efforts on reconstruction in afghanistan. you can see that on our website. willie, republican. caller: the problem is this syndrome makes it a disposition. we are not at war. at least in our minds. the problem is iran, in the minds of their leadership, maybe not some of the young folks, but in the minds of their leadership, they have been at forwith the great satan decades. that is what makes this a difficult issue. somebody mentioned about the trunk doctrine. voters, itrump thought the trunk doctrine would

have been like a snake where all or most of the u.s. assets, including troops and civilians home untilssets come abroad a domestic threat and then we put all our efforts together like a snake and strike to solve that particular issue. i would have think , they on the navy uniform are allowed to wear the navy jet, and it says don't tread on me, which is a snake. the idea of being strong and powerful but really kind of careful until you actually have to strike is something that brings true to me. this is a approach that we have been using for the last 30

years, and i think that is the hallmark of it. be strong, watch the world, hit where you need to, but don't stay past your welcome date. don't stick around and engage in things that get us into things that are not necessarily helpful and that sink us into these quagmires. host: this is james from tennessee, and independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i have two questions. i appreciate your comments. i don't appreciate the categorization that we are going to war with iran. i don't think anyone in the administration tanks we are going to war with iran. withe we don't go to war iraq. i don't think that was our

intention. we've heard about all of the pluses and minuses of this attack, and i think we should stand back and not prejudge the whole situation. number two, go back to the iraq war. i know it was criticized. would you rather have saddam hussein in power with a nuclear , which was his stated goal to deliver that on israel, when he was alive. that is what we would be having now if we had not gone through that war. it was a mess. now at least we have a republican, and we have the citizens participating -- think the question of where the president goes is not clear.

we have seen a president that has some instincts towards being intocareful about getting and staying in some of these conflicts. what i would love to see is for the president to try to push forward on afghanistan, extra skate -- extricate ourselves from there, and one day to get out of iraq so we don't have these targets there that could be hit like we saw for the contractor was killed and to provide a flashpoint for relations. focusk really trying to on great power competition is a move in the right direction. that is a better approach than i think these wars like we saw in libya, like we are fighting in syria, and that would be better. i think the other thing to point out is if the views that i toress here are interesting

the audience, there are a lot more people sharing these things out there. some of the activities of groups like defense priorities or the new quincy institute, people like ro khanna, people like on if it tot site -- different sides of the aisle, you are seeing more grants data jeez then we have seen in a long time. unfortunately we really did not have a conversation that we needed, what is our proper role in the world? that rakee seeing open, and i think that trump was less a cause than a symptom of that debate, but the fact is he has broken some of the china, and that has been productive, kind of a creative disruption he is challenging some of the assumptions about alliances and burden sharing, how to do some

of the diplomacy, whether we should rethink commitment to these endless wars. on the others you have people like david betray us talking about how we should stay in places like afghanistan, and those are two very different asians. i think we need to really have this kind of intellectual fight about what should america do going forward. i think that it is not a simple answer. there are good arguments on both sides i'm a that's why we need a robust marketplace of ideas. we have not had that for so long. back during the iraq war, or a lot of the questions that you imagine being asked know about that? were they being debated? there is a kind of rush for everybody to support it. look what happened. i think it's healthier and it will be more healthy going forward because of the fact there is more energy around alternative vision. host: you can read william's

the charles koch institute.org. we appreciate your time and come back again. up next on the washington journal, for about the final 25 minutes, we will be talking about the push by congress to limit the president on iran, asking you should simply be doing that. the phone lines if you inc. they should or should not, are on your screen, and you can start calling in. we will be right back. ♪ >> continue to follow the impeachment on c-span leading to the senate trial come alive ,nfiltered coverage on c-span and you can listen on our free radio app.

>> i am the 2018 c-span studentcam winner, and i want to encourage you to continue to wrap up this competition as the deadline is getting close. you still have time for this is about the time i started filming my documentary the first year i entered. i am in the d.c. offices and i want to tell you that this was an incredible opportunity for me to express my thoughts about the political climate and to connect with locals and state leaders. i am excited that you are interested in this and are pursuing this because it is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. >> there still time for you to enter, you have until january 20 to create a documentary that explores an issue you want the candidates to address during campaign 2020 we are giving away

a total of $100,000 in cash prizes. for more information go to our website. host: in our last segment today we are asking you about the push by the congressional democrats when it comes to iran, asking you should congress limit the president? if you think they should, (202) 748-8000, and if they should not, (202) 748-8001. we will remind you of this letter from sunday in the wake of the death of the irani in general at the hands of a drone strike in iraq. this is what nancy pelosi wrote on sunday, as members of our first responsibility is to keep americans safe. we are concerned about this

action without the respect for by the of powers granted constitution. this week the house will , a resolutionte similar to one introduced by tim kaine, and it reasserts long-established oversight responsibilities i mandating that no -- if no further congressional action is taken, their responsibilities cease. this is senator tim kaine from the floor of the senate yesterday. my conclusion is i believe that the u.s. should not be at war with iran and indeed another war there would be catastrophic. but i recognize that some of my colleagues may have a different point of view. hopes of forging a consensus on at least one issue, and that is this, if

there is to be a war with iran, it should not be initiated by this president or any president acting on his or her own. it should only be initiate by a vote of congress following a debate in full view of the american people. shouldember of congress vote and be accountable for the question of whether another war in the middle east is a good idea. for accountability is constitutional and requires the framework that we have. we pledge to support and defend the principle. it is up to congress to declare war, not the president. odds engage in a war, the are high that young american men and women will be killed or injured. some will see their friends killed and injured part some will have the remainder of their lives affected by physical and emotional injuries, post-traumatic stress, and the pain of losing friends.

their families and friends will bear those scars as well. if we are to order our troops to run that risk, then it should be based on a public consensus as reflected in an open congressional debate and vote. if congress debates the matter in full view of the public and reaches the conclusion that a war is necessary, so be it. even if i were to vote no, if the majority of my colleagues voted yes, i would agree that the decision was a legitimate basis. host: that was yesterday from the floor of the senate. some reaction from yesterday, this from senator lindsey graham saying i will oppose any war powers resolution so as to allow this president to have the latitude he needs as commander-in-chief, the last thing america needs is 535 commanders in chief. the americans elected one. another treat from joe wilson,

yesterday his tweet, house democrats called to limit the president powers is nothing but partisan politics. mostwas one of the merciless terrorists who has been directly responsible for over 600 american deaths. asking you, should congress act to limit the president? robert out of virginia says yes. why is that? >> i think congress should have the say so, just like the constitution, he got in trouble for impeachment because that's not in the constitution. any president should follow the constitution, not only that, everything that he does always utin. doesn't he is justnd that putin

walking his way right across asian, and the american people cannot seem to understand that. i do not know why. host: this is ronald from florida. he says no. why? what he did, he took out butt an enemy necessarily, he took out a burr. he should have that responsibility. i am a veteran, and i did not like the way truman handled the situation in korea. we need a strong person like the president. the reason he is not getting any help from the congress or the house is because of their hatred for him.

they have no expectations of helping him in anything he does. host: having this conversation on a day in which the top house and senate leaders are expected to get a briefing from the administration on the iran strike, and the day before members of the house and senate are expected to get a similar briefing from the secretary of state, the defense secretary, and central intelligence agency director and others expected to come to capitol hill and also having this conversation as the wall street journal points out, top senate democrats calling on the president to declassify the notification to congress of the drone strike last week. it is critical that the national security matters be shared with the american people, and minority leader chuck schumer

said in a letter to the white house on monday. kevin from texas says yes, congress should act. i think there is a reason trump does the stuff and it is just for attention. i don't think america needs to go to war so he can get some attention. says itthe impeachment all. i think we are trying to impeach him, and this is why we are trying to. you cannot go assassinate foreign leaders, unless you want guessd war i, which i they kind of had. you just cannot go assassinate who you want to. would you like it if somebody came over here and assassinated, i don't know, mark esper?

he is not our highest military officer, but just imagine somebody like that in america being assassinated by a drone by iran. imagine how you would feel. they've got a right to be mad right now. host: deborah is waiting from oregon on the line for those who say no. caller: good morning. say that ied to believe that the democrats in the house completely lost their minds. for them to try to usurp the president of the united states and the decision that he is making, in the best interest of the security of the americans, not just the republicans in this , he is here to protect the democrats and all the people who hate him as well. i am tired of the hate and the lies being told by the press. , how they listen

to the president, how they encourage the president, how they are supporting what it is that he is doing, he has information through the people who are representing us in the country that people on the outside do not see. it is unfair for people to jump to conclusions about what is going on when they don't have the full picture. i can't tell you with the division here and the way it is being continually perpetuated by the press, i don't see how people here are going to come together until they are fair in how they judge the president and how they sit back without their hair on fire and that the president be the president. there is a separation of powers in the country for a reason. host: would you agree on the

call to declassify the notification that was sent to congress, the explanation for this strike last week on soleimani? caller: i am not sure. there are reasons for secrets here, and that we have elected officials here to keep the secrets because there's too many people here that are undermining our president, and i believe that if our president had not taken the move that he had going after this horrible terrorist, that the democrats would've gotten the news out, and it would've undermined the safety and security of the entire country. deborah talking about how the press is treating this issue. this is the editorial board of the wall street journal today. this is how they ended their lead editorial, this was a bold act that other presidents

probably would not have attempted to ensure this measure of deterrence. most americans appreciated it good but now the president has to show he can manage the consequences to prove this was a wise decision. that was the headline on that lead editorial, if you want to read it in the wall street journal. richard from michigan, you are next. you for letting me take the call. i disagree with the wall street journal. is wells -- iran populated with intelligent people and they have the means to destroy any of the opportunities that we have in various locations across the globe. it concerns me that the president has gone and acted when other presidents probably have the same opportunities and chose not to because they knew full well what the repercussions would be from a war.

that is where we are heading. this work could have devastating effects both on our allies as well as the homeland. i thank you for letting this conversation go forward and i appreciate the opportunity to voice my opinion. 10t: we have at about minutes left. we have linda from ohio. caller: i cannot believe that we have given one man so much power that he can create war we are dictatorship. other people should be consulted about this. much.eally bothers me so i feel that trump is doing this as a distraction from his impeachment. this is not going to help anyone. host: were you concerned about the previous presidential

ability to make war? or is this just come up with this administration? caller: i don't think anyone person in the government -- it wasn't set up that one person makes these decisions. be a joint decision by other people and not only that, i do not see how trump is qualified to make this pretty things he knows more than the generals do. he does not make use of the knowledge of the people who are experienced. it just bothers me very much. something has to change. is where the leading presidential candidates on the democratic side of the i'll stand on this issue, joe biden, let's be clear trump does not have the authority to take us into war without congressional approval. a president should never take this nation to war without the

informed consent of the american people are this is bernie sanders from sunday, congress must reassert its responsibility over war. they must vote to immediately defund unauthorized action against iran. another tweet from elizabeth warren, donald trump is dangerous. he has undermined our diplomatic relationships with his political games. he has driven crises. we cannot allow his actions to drag us back into another war one more from the former mayor pete buttigieg. when i am commander in cheese, military action not be a surprise to congressional leaders of either party. chris from alabama is next. i got a question. i am a democrat and i do not believe that the president should tell congress ahead of

time especially with the way it , ifoday because if he did he did tell nancy pelosi before he did it, as soon she it's off the phone with that president, she is going to call john kerry, in my opinion, and he would call the ayatollah, which everybody knows he's got a direct line to him untraceable, and inform what is fixing to happen. get: where did you information about this direct line to the ayatollah? caller: john kerry does have a direct line, and obama did give billion without congress approving it. i know this is correct.

president cannot kill a terrorist that is okayed for president obama and john kerry to get a nuclear deal and give them $125 billion. this is carlos from florida. my answer was no come and the reason i say that, from studying history, had our president taken action the way this took and taken out leader, many of the jewish people would've been safe. thank you. this is bob from pennsylvania. caller: good morning. irst i would like to say that am an actual democrat, not just pretending.

anybody believe what he says, he says the intelligence found the greatest in the world, agree with number four, didn't agree with them on the directions -- on the russians or the saudi's. they were the deep state then. why does he agree now? host: this is john from pennsylvania. good morning. caller: i bet you 90% of the people here did not know who this general was, and the president tells lindsey graham on the golf course about his actions, but will not tell congress read it really makes you wonder, and then he did not discuss any of this with any of our allies, which he should have done. he will ask them for help later on. a loose is really

cannon. there is something wrong with this president, either mentally or physically or whatever. it just does not seem right what it he is doing to this country. that is my comment. host: you say americans are only now learning about soleimani. here is story from the wall street journal looking at the one revolutionary guard and regular forces split up on this chart here for the regular forces, some round forces with additional hundred 50,000 ground forces for the revolutionary guard ground forces, 150,000, those that answer directly to the supreme leader, the ayatollah. see so on down the line with the navy and air force and air defense. million reserve forces for the revolutionary

guard. in terms of u.s. troops that have recently moved into the region, the journal takes a look at that, some 10,000 u.s. troops moved towards the middle east or placed on alert since so macron sincedland was killed -- soleimani was killed. this includes the 26th arena unit, and several hundred military personnel part of the deployment of bombers according to u.s. officials. an airbase, sent to and some are being returned to the region in the coming days according to that official heard that is all again from the wall street journal. we have about five minutes left today. should congress act to limit the president on iran? rodney from west virginia says no. why?

caller: because we elected the president to make these decisions come and you hear a lot of people talking about, he is being old. that is exactly why we elected him, to be bold. thattell you a president was under impeachment that did not act and that some of bin laden attacked us numerous times, and he did not act because he did not want to take the focus off the impeachment so-called. host: you think bill clinton did not want to take the focus of his own impeachment? he did not hitid a sum of bin laden when he was with the saudi's because it would've been a distraction. people would've said the saying thing that they are saying about trump now, that they were trying

to distract. look what happened. this is helen from california. caller: good morning. first of all, your question is skewed against trump. why? caller: i am looking at your question again right now, canress -- only they declare war and yet you have protesters and the democrats whipping up anti-sentiment saying they're not going to go to war and trump will have us go to war rate it is legally impossible for trump to declare war on a ran, and you know it. you know that as a fact. your other guests who just left stated that. only congress can declare war on iran.

why didn't you bring up the fact that obama when he was president said constant drones into afghanistan that that never was an issue with the democrats and congress. but this is is a pathetic ploy for more anti-sentiment towards trump especially during the impeachment. the democrats are saying that dixie is going to war and it will be devastating, and our military troops will be decimated. the fact is they are just trying to gain more support from the public for the impeachment, because everyone is not on board with their decision to oust the president from his position and put in their own people which power to there democrats. it is completely selfish. this question is skewed. host: i am sorry you feel that way. members of congress a they will act this week to limit the

president. the are simply asking should they. this is spread from michigan. i think you should talk to more veterans that have been over there and they would tell you that we agree with that lady that just got off the phone that trump is doing the right job. obama was a sissy. he had a love affair over there. talk to more veterans. that man had blood all over his hands. god bless you. host: this is dave from new hampshire. he says congress should act to limit the president when it comes to iran. good morning. i think trump should be limited. i would like to see the legislature do something, anything, to kind of take back congress, tom

limit the powers of the executive branch. they seem to have been asleep for the last 40 years or something. people theymost want to see more action from legislation and less from the executive branch. diminished should be to a figurehead but i think we are becoming diminished in every election. host: we areter -- waiting to perhaps hear from secretary of state mike pompeo from the state department. he is expected to speak this morning on the killing soleimani of general -- killing of general soleimani pay but until then, taking your phone calls. it should congress limit the

president when it comes to iran. : i think trump wants a war to deflect attention from he impeachment and i think don'ta war so that people -- will reelect him. that is not right because conquest is the one who is supposed to declare war i say yes. west virginia,e good morning. i do think that congress should move to limit more powers and let me tell you why. if they do that, they will give donald trump a third, fourth, fifth term. host: why do you think that?

why do you think it will win him another term? caller: well, they think we are blind. it is so political. msnbc observed a moment of silence on their set, flying the iranian flag. they are anti-american. what i call have the american squad, which is omar and pelosi, schumer, and the rest of them. they are inside american. .hey hate our liberties they want us to be in the same boat as iran. host: why do you think they want that? why would you let our infrastructure fall apart, our

country is falling apart and yet we are sending billions of dollars to all of these foreign countries, leveling the playing field globally on the back of the american taxpayer. that is anti-american. host: that is sharon in west virginia. a few tweets and texts as we have been having the conversation. this is lee of tennessee, note limits on president trump. i value the critical principle of unity of command and one boss, especially when taking fire or putting one out. one other text message that came in saying, yes, congress should limit the president. the timing of this with the impeachment hearing has questioned our intelligence on so many issues paid why were the republicans the only ones initially advised? taking your phone calls while we wait for the secretary of state

mike pompeo to speak at the state department this morning on the death of general soleimani with the drone strike last thursday. leonard is in alabama. good morning, you are next. caller: yes, sir. from thehat leading front looks like, not leading from the rear like barack obama. this is president trump's call. let him do what he's got to do. thank you. host: to rick in asheville, north carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. to sets just trying himself up to be king. he always thinks he is the smartest person in the room. host: we will have to end it there appeared secretary mike pompeo speaking to reporters at the state apartment. we take you there now. sec. pompeo: i want to