at 7 p.m., president trump holds a rally in wildwood, new jersey. this week, live coverage of the house debate and vote to limit u.s. military action against iran. california democratic representative barbara lee have to repeal resolution the congressional authorization for the use of military force against iraq and to block federal funding from being used to take military action against iran without congressional authorization. live coverage this week on c-span. watch on-demand at www.c-span.org, listen on the go with the free c-span radio app. next, your phone calls on the senate impeachment trial of president trump as his attorneys continue their arguments against the articles. democratic presidential candidate tom steyer joins the program at 9:00 a.m. from iowa,

then back to your calls on the senate impeachment trial. as always, you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" ♪ host: president trump's attorneys will finish their arguments today in the senate impeachment trial as revelations from john bolton's forthcoming book push republican senators to consider calling him as a witness. this is "washington journal" for tuesday, january 28, 2020. we would like to hear what your thoughts are as the defense enters its final phase. 202-748-8000 is the line for democrats to call. 202-748-8001 for republicans. independents and others, that is 202-748-8002. you can also send us a text, 202-748-8003, and make sure you

include your name and where you are texting from. on twitter we are @cspanwj and we will look for your postings on our facebook page. this is what the homepage of the washington post looks like, bolton revelations royal republican senators renew pressure to call witnesses. the president's team of lawyers pressed their case he did nothing wrong with holding a two ukraine. disclosures from john bolton's manuscript -- the case for hearing from more witnesses. they focused on hunter biden, but not alan dershowitz, he mentioned the john bolton story and the thought of john bolton -- calling john bolton as a witness. [video clip] follows from this that if a president, any president were to have done what the times reported about the content of

the bolton manuscript, that would not constitute an impeachable offense. nothing in the bolton wouldtions even if true rise to the level of an abuse of power or an impeachable offense. host: we will get to your calls and comments momentarily. let's check in with john mcardle on the republican senators, the ones potentially considering calling john bolton as a witness. comments,rshowitz's one of the few times john bolton was mentioned. senators being asked quite a bit about the revelations, here is one of the headlines from politico this morning, bolton upends republican fight against witnesses, but members of gop leadership immediately thought to downplay the revelations.

one of those members of republican leadership, don brasa , several tweets mentioning john bolton yesterday and one of them say we have a responsibility to not allow this to become a circus, that is what democrats are trying to do. some discussion behind closed doors among republican senators as reported in this washington post story. senator patrick toomey had spoken with several colleagues in recent days about possibly summoning two witnesses to president trump's impeachment trial with one called by republicans and one by democrats . according to politico, that came up at a republican lunch yesterday, wasn't well received by some of the attendees according to one of their sources in the room. had spoken about has --

his idea with mitt romney and others. mitt romney one of those influential swing votes when it comes to the idea of whether or not to call witnesses. he has been closely watched along with susan collins. here is her statement she put out yesterday. from the beginning i have said in fairness to both parties the decision should be made after the house managers and the president's attorneys have made their cases. i have always said i was likely to vote to call witnesses like i did in the clinton trial. the reports about the book strengthens the case for witnesses and has prompted a number of conversations. cnn caught up with mitt romney in one of the hallways of the senate buildings asking him about the idea of calling witnesses. [video clip] >> i cannot begin to tell you

how john bolton's testimony would play, but it is relevant and i would like to hear it. what impact that might have would be dependent on all the facts. we hear from the prosecution and defense as to what was relevant and what was said and how that might influence our vote, but i cannot begin to tell you how that would be resolved. i see myself as a senator juror and i will rain -- maintain impartiality. host 2: some reaction from republican senators including kelly leffler, the newest member of the senate, this is what she said specifically mentioning mitt romney. it is clear democrats have no pace -- no case for impeachment. mitt romney wants to appease the left by calling witnesses who will slander the president. the circus is over and it is time to move on. johnpaul asking why didn't

bolton testify to the u.s. house ? apparently his book was not finished for the presales. josh hawley saying if we are going to call witnesses, we need to call all of the witnesses. that is why the senator has drafted motions to subpoena adam schiff, the whistleblower, hunter biden, and joe biden to testify as well. when this idea of witnesses will be decided -- it will come after the president's lawyers finish making their case on the senate floor, today is their last day to do so. then the senate will turn to 16 hours of questions submitted through john roberts and that .ill go on for two days the senate will undertake this question of whether to subpoena more witnesses and documents and -- seeexpecting

additional documents, there will be deliberations and votes. all of that expected to happen later in the week. host: we are going to get to your calls and comments. joe in georgia, republican line. caller: bill. love c-span and i have been calling for 30 years. we love trump down here in georgia, we think he is going to win a huge win. we have rallies planned, barbecues and we have invited president trump. the key to this landslide win will be the 28 billion small businesses who will vote for trump. thousands of talk shows and the .illions of stockholders my ira has done fantastic, but that will be the formula to give trump the biggest landslide in

history. i am so fired up, i am having a hard time sleeping. host: al on the democrats line. caller: he is really fired up. . this is an overwhelming case. i wrote down the witnesses that testified at the house, jennifer williams, alexander vindman, gordon sondland, william taylor, laura cooper, david hale, george kent, all of those people, all the people that testified at the house hearings were corroborating the whistleblower account and saying there was a quid pro quo with ukraine and let me further add the american people support, i think the figure is 75% of the american people want to hear from

witnesses. republican senators do not want to hear the truth. they don't want to hear the witnesses, they don't want to look at the documents and bolton has firsthand knowledge of the call. the whistleblower does not, so i don't understand that republican talking point. host: stafford, virginia, next, dan on the republican line. thing for the other party making accusations is really unfortunate because you have to bring up things in the past to prove your innocence, not prove you are not guilty, but prove your innocence. descent and iic am amazed there was all that talk and all that concern of beingen at the border held in cages was not out there. they did not get one mention

during this, but people from across the world that aren't even on our continent are concerned that is going to be something worthy of this sort of investigation, this sort of trial. i don't think with the president did at the border was raw, to build a wall stopped suffering. many will agree with that. maybe not all agree. that did not even make one mention, one sentence out of anyone's mouth. toould ask other hispanics ask themselves who is concerned here about this. view from theon wall street journal, john bolton's report is the title of the op-ed, he should tell the public what he knows. with the news of what is in the book already public, he can help everyone, including himself by erasing doubt about what he

knows. he can tell the american public what he wrote now. put to rest of the cover-up talking point, this doesn't senate testifying to the . our editors are standing by. we hear next from marcus in california. caller: to me, this proves we really need a genuine third-party. both parties have done a great job entangling us in foreign wars that we can never seem to extract ourselves out of. for somebody making america great again, he is spending more time in other countries than anybody i have seen. i feel the democrats have done just as good a job getting us into these wars. the right wingers act like this man is the wizard of oz.

defecatinge if he is gold bricks. it is frightening to see how people are so worshipful of this person. i think we need to get on with this, let the witnesses show and we need to focus on our foreign policies and asking ourselves why does everybody think they are an armchair general? we are going to send $400 million and nobody thinks about this to add more fuel to the fire. i thought we were going to make friends with the russians? we need to make peace with each other and stop being nonchalant with the fact we are pointing nuclear weapons with each other for eternity. this is a little thing i think we should consider. kelsey gabbard was the only candidate that mentioned nuclear war and they crucified her. i don't even know if she is running anymore. host: she is still running.

toledo, ohio, tim, democrats line. we lost tim. john in mechanicsburg, pennsylvania, republican line. caller: i want to comment about book.olton's leak in his i am a republican and started voting in 1980's and most mainstream republican voters ca warmonger when they see them. john bolton has always wanted to have words. trump said i am letting him go, we don't agree on things foreign policy wise. if it was up to john, we would be in 20 new wars. he is about the military fighting, making money, war profiting. he is trying to sell books, he is obviously an insider that wants more wars, more fighting, more military industrial complex profiting.

this is a test for republicans in the senate. if they don't support president trump, many of them will not be around in the next election. host: u.s. senate, live coverage on c-span 2. a number of his team represented yesterday on the senate floor formerng pam bondi also attorney general in florida. she talked about the connection she drew between hunter biden and burisma. [video clip] gaveen the house managers their presentation and submitted their brief, they repeatedly referenced hunter biden and burisma. they spoke to you for over 21 bidenand they referenced burisma overl -- 400 times and when they gave these presentations, they said

there was nothing to see, it was a sham. .his is fiction in the trial memorandum, the house managers describe this as baseless. why did they say that? why did they invoke biden or burisma over 400 times? the reason they needed to do hereis because they are saying the president must be impeached and removed from .ffice for raising a concern that is why we have to talk about this today. they say sham, they say baseless. they say this because if it is ok for someone to say maybe there is something here worth raising, then their case crumbles.

they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there is ,o basis to raise this concern but that is not what public records show. here are just a few of the public sources that flagged questions surrounding this very kingdomue, the united serious fraud office, deputy assistant secretary of state george kent, hunter biden's former business associate, and abc white house reporter, good morning america, abc, the washington post, the new york times, ukrainian law enforcement, and the obama state department itself. they all raised this issue. host: back to your calls. ricky, good morning. caller: how are you doing this

morning? host: fine, thank you. caller: i believe all this stuff is smoke. the president, he knows he has done wrong. everybody else know he has done wrong. if these people want -- would have watched from the beginning up till now, he should be impeached because bolton knows everything and then everybody bolton talked to, bolton turned around and told they were right. republicans, they are going eo have things to pay com election time. host: -- perhaps catching the temperature in the room, bolton relations anger republicans.

john mcardle, what else do you have? host 2: you pet -- you played that clip of pam bondi talking about the bidens and hunter biden. at anden defended his son appearance in iowa as he continues on the campaign trail. want to show viewers what he had to say about his son. [video clip] methese guys are attacking and my family, i get it. the press corps says they brought up your son and this and that and the other thing. becausehold grudges presidents cannot hold grudges. presidents have to be fighters, but they have to be healers. host 2: that was joe biden on the campaign trail and we have been talking about john bolton quite a bit since the new york times came out on sunday. president trump has not tweeted yet today. his last tweet was after

midnight, he was watching cnn and commenting. we are looking for his latest from this morning. he did tweet yesterday before this program started at 7:00 a.m. eastern about john bolton and this was the president's tweet, the democrat's controlled house never asked john bolton to testify, it is up to them, not the senate and fact checkers at several organizations jumped on that calling it false. factfrom fact check.org -- check.org. it was october 30 an attorney for the democrats of the house intelligence committee sent an email and a letter to bolton's attorney with the subject line deposition inquest -- request. the letter requested the appearance of ambassador john bolton at the deposition being transmitted from the house of representatives and a few hours later, the attorney acknowledged receipt of the letter from the

as youhairs and said have anticipated, ambassador bolton is not willing to appear voluntarily. house intelligence committee official told the media and they cite a political report their committee would not pursue subpoenaing saying we regret the decision not to appear voluntarily, but we have no interest in allowing the administration to play a rope a dope with us for months. the white house instruction he not appear will add to the obstruction of congress a charge . his personal attorney sent a letter to the house general counsel suggesting if ambassador bolton were subpoenaed, he would .ile a lawsuit and not comply they note bolton has since changed his mind and they point to this statement from january we have talked about and viewers have heard about since we have brought it up and it has been in

discussion for several weeks, carefulton saying after consideration and study, he concluded if the senate issues a subpoena for his testimony, he would be prepared to testify to the senate. that leaves us at the point of whether john bolton will testify and that is up to 51 united states senators. host: the new york times has an interesting piece about how that would happen. how a subpoena could come about, what is the clearest way to subpoena witnesses? a 51 vote majority. chief justice john roberts could decide when a vote on a motion ends in a tie, the motion fails. the unsuccessful effort to remove andrew johnson in 1868, the chief justice cast tie-breaking votes as the presiding officer. the third time, mr. chase

abstained. may roberts decide on his own without any vote? it is unclear. in an article published monday, three legal experts declared he could. they argued chief justice roberts has the power to subpoena witnesses because a clause in the 1986 era rules for impeachment trial says the presiding officers may issue orders on their own. a couple of comments on text. that line, 202-748-8003. jim in buffalo saying why is the narrative taken as gospel, he is a disgruntled want to be taking his threat at the president. bill in new jersey, i guess president trump is sitting in the oval office this morning rethinking of how he treated john bolton. to your calls in maryland, wesley, go ahead. caller: how are you today?

host: fine, thank you. caller: it is funny you guys played the clip of pamela bondi and joe biden this morning. that has been on my mind. i was wondering, chuck schumer thisentioned several times week that he does not think the bidens are relevant to the impeachment and he only wants to call fact witnesses. the accusations towards the bidens are pretty serious. i am wondering if there should be some sort of investigation into that, if there is already .ne ongoing host: dan in youngstown, ohio. is unbelievable democrats have the corruption

right there in front of them. biden and his sun took money from corrupt governments, from the ukrainians, from china, it is right in before you, yet they are looking at republicans for corruption. it is not up to trump to prove his innocence, it is up to the accusers to prove their case. the whole thing here is they cannot beat trump at the polls, they are scared to death if he gets back in for 4 years, he the courts ins conservativism, they don't want that, they want him out of there , there is no way they can get him out except with false charges. host: you pointed out correctly the president does not have to prove his innocence. what about the bidens. in particular, hunter biden, people talk about bringing him

in as a witness, does he have to, through his process, proved his innocence or have the republicans prove his guilt for whatever corruption may have happened? caller: here is the thing, we have concrete evidence he took money from these governments, he does not even deny that, so there should be some investigation. that should be investigated thoroughly and if they cannot prove he is guilty, it is the same thing, he does not have to prove his innocence, but there should be some kind of investigation. what bothers me is the democrats completely ignore that side of it and keep pointing fingers at trump. don't they see the corruption is before them? caller: how are you doing, sir? host: i am fine, thank you. caller: i would like for you all

to play what senator ernst said yesterday about vice president she mentioned something about how the voters are going to react to him now that that information is out. also, i am interested in finding out if the president -- a president has ever investigated a vice president or a president they have succeeded. comment, ijoni ernst think we have that for you later in the program. pamela in indiana on the democrats line, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i am an attorney in indiana and i am stunned anyone could think you could have a fair trial without witnesses and without documents the accused has withheld, that is the classic

definition of a cover-up. i am stunned by how many people have called in upset about the bidens. the bidens are not the issue, this is a red herring. the president is being accused of abuse of presidential power, he is the one sitting in the toice that had the ability have these conversations to withhold aid, the evidence is overwhelming. joe biden is a red herring. this is a political attack on who he thinks is his greatest opponent, he is not in a position of authority and if you really want to talk about abuse, kids talk about the trump and how much they have profited from their father's administration. if you uncover the hunter biden issue, you have the vast, corrupt trump kids who have their roles without security clearances that are still getting protective

clearance and great deals. host: the front page of the washington time focusing on the attorneys that spoke yesterday. defense targets obama, hunter biden, the defense team put hunter biden and barack obama on trial monday. questioning why democrats were not outraged by the $3 million sweetheart deal with the ukrainian gas company or caving to russia on missile defense brushing past renewed calls for john bolton to testify, the president's attorney put hunter biden in the witness chair to had plenty ofdent reasons to urge the ukrainian president to open up a probe. we will hear from murray in -- marie in west virginia. i would likeler:

to make a couple of comments about your guest you have on there. host: which guest are you in particular? ,aller: you had a reverent what you called a reverent called al. i think his last name was sharp. host: is he not allowed to criticize the president? , ther: it is just the way hatred that came out of his voice. arie, having not heard the comments, i cannot make any comment. thank you for calling in. we hear from warsaw, independent line. caller: good morning. my comment would be i have

and i am my senator calling for the senate to call john bolton to testify. i believe they can put parameters on the questioning so it does not jeopardize national voicety and i believe his is important to hear. he is a firsthand direct witness to what this trial is about. not hearsay, not secondhand information, someone who has direct knowledge. i think absolutely. as far as hunter biden, hunter biden does not have firsthand knowledge or direct knowledge of anything with ukraine, the president putting a hold on ukraine's money. calling hunter biden would not be productive.

also, to say hunter biden did something illegal, are we going to stop -- start looking at every congressman, every senator, every president's family, children, brothers, sisters, everyone in the cabinet that may be working for a company that their knowledge of what that company does is questionable? we could really get in the weeds with that. host: one of the 7 republican managers on -- the defense team on the republican side, members of the house part of the defense team is doug collins and haven't heard much of him before the cameras, but he is expected to run for the senate in georgia. he is planning to announce a run for the senate according to multiple sources challenging kelly leffler and complicating the path to holding onto a battleground senate seat.

leffler and collins will be running to complete the term of johnny isakson who resigned at the end of last year because of health concerns. the election is an all party contest with the top two challengers facing off in a january runoff. if no candidate tops 50% of the vote. did not give when, but apparently he will make that announcement. we hear from mike on the republican line. caller: that was fast, good morning. i am home, i just had surgery, so i have a lot of time on my hands. host: i hope you are doing okay. caller: i appreciate the good thoughts. i am on the mend. i am not watching, i refuse to because everyone knew the outcome from the very beginning. i still watch old movies i have

seen 10, 20 times because the entertainment value is wonderful, the acting, the script, the sets, the lighting, whatever. iss is campaign 2020, that all this is an all it has been since pretty much president trump was elected. you can always -- almost count " to bee "bombshells dropped at these opportune times. now we have this bolton snippet based on hearsay evidence from somebody giving it to the new york times, the washington post, i cannot tell the difference anymore. that is all this is at this point, democrats knew going in if they wanted documents, if they wanted witnesses, if they wanted all that stuff -- hello? host: you are on the air, go ahead. caller: that there was a procedure from that just like with the clinton impeachment, it

involved time, which they do not have. they are up against the clock with november 2020 staring them in the face. they could not afford to wait for subpoenas and everything else even though john bolton said publicly if you subpoena me, i will show up and that was in the house hearings. they did not subpoena antibody because they knew they had to rush this because they also knew the conclusion was forgone. they knew there was no way in hell based upon this flimsy -- there is no other word for it, this flimsy evidence of obstruction of congress and abuse of power that they were going to get 67 votes in the senate to convict president trump and remove him from office, this is a tv show and it will continue.

i am not making this up, there is a lot smarter people that have predicted this. this is going to be shut down and it will be shut down quick, maybe even by the end of the week they will vote and something else will drop. we have 9 months until the election, this will continue just like with michael avenatti, michael cohen, the mueller track here. losing mend,glad you are on the don't want you to get upset, you are recovering from surgery. you are not watching today, but hope people will be on c-span 2 arguments begin at 1:00 eastern. mindy is next on our democrats line in baltimore. caller: i have a thought this morning, good morning. biden's son hast -- has

to come in and talk about what he did, i would like to see did.'s taxes for what he i am about finished. i want to say this. , you willrt to lie catch a thief, that is my thought this morning. he will steal, thank you. host: that effort is making its way in the courts, go back to john mcardle. host 2: we always appreciate this ongoing conversation with viewers and callers and we want to go back to the caller who asked us to play the comment of joni ernst about how the impeachment trial might be chances inoe biden's iowa, here is that exchange, first senator john barrasso and then joni ernst at the end. [video clip] >> everyone was paying close

attention about the discussion for the bidens, but the four people whose eyes were open were elizabeth warren, michael bennet, bernie sanders, and amy klobuchar -- i have never seen them also attentive. >> iowa caucuses, folks, are this next monday evening and i am really interested to see how this discussion today informs and influences the iowa caucus voters, the democratic caucus boers. will they be supporting vice president biden at this point? host 2: i was joni ernst yesterday. that is being called the subway stakeout in the basement of the capital where you have been watching senators make their comments before, after, and in the brakes in the impeachment trial. several news outlets jumping on whether republicans are

weaponizing the trump team's comments about the bidens, joe biden and hunter biden, here is one from the liberal side of the spectrum from the huffington post. one of the people they talk to, senator chris murphy of connecticut saying it is so clear they want the senate to become complicit in helping the administration continue to destroy the bidens. i am not going to be a party to the same scheme the president has been impeached for. that at the huffington post if you want to read more and one other viewer caller from yesterday during this program, a viewer asked the question about whether the impeachment managers and the president's lawyers are sworn in as part of the impeachment proceedings. had to do a little more research, but have an answer. we went back to the united states senate manual with the

standing rules, the laws, the orders of the senate and did not find that the impeachment managers or the president past lawyers get sworn in, specifically those required to take an oath are the ones you saw in the process, the chief justice sworn in by chuck grassley, the senior member, the president pro tem, that swearingen happens and immediately after that according to the standing rules of the senate and the chief justice then turns to the senators and swears them in. the oath, if you don't remember dot they were sworn to airing the impeachment trial, i solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of donald j. trump now pending, i will do impartial justice according to the constitution and laws so help me god. that is the oath laid out in the rules of the senate and the senate manual.

with all the talk about witnesses, if a witness is called in this case, the witnesses would also get sworn in as part of the impeachment trial. they take this oath if they are called in the impeachment trial. evidence inwear the shall be theve truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help me god. host: john doing all the heavy lifting. it don't go away, i have one more for you, this one says c-span producers, help us understand how witnesses would be handled, questions in writing? question by managers for questions by senators question mark educate us. senators?ns by educate us. we have been talking about the pressure going for bolton --

testifyfor bolton to and the 75th anniversary of the auschwitz -- they will take on information on this holocaust remembrance day, live coverage at 10:00 a.m. eastern. in parkersburg, west virginia, good morning. caller: hello? host: you are on the air. caller: i don't believe john bolton's testimony is relevant because as everybody has repeated 10,000 times, the house had their chance and i watched tv on your station the day nancy pelosi was asked why she wasn't going to subpoena him and she said because it would take too long and this president is a clear and present danger to our nation, that shows you what this

is all about. she wasn't interested at that time getting things expedited. i was very impressed with the president's attorneys and especially alan dershowitz because i have always been impressed with him in the first place. i thought he did a fantastic job of showing senators and it is not ane that impeachable offense, they had no case. it was empty and supreme court judge stephens -- i read one wide thatlaw is so the common person cannot understand what it is about, it is dead on the space. i have no idea what they were accusing him of and i don't think anybody else does.

is all i wide and that want to say. host: nicholas on our democrats line, pennsylvania. nicholas? you are on the air. claudia next up. we will go to north carolina. caller: yes. the thought that keeps coming to my mind and i have watched all of this senate impeachment trial and much before during the russia investigation and try to keep a critical mind and i wanted to say one of the things that keeps coming to me is if adam schiff thought the phone call from the president was so did he go on, why a talk show or wherever where he stating a whole

different interpretation of the phone call? it did not represent the phone call at all and basically is a .kewing of the truth the federal communications states on their website and i think we all need to be aware of this that the public trustees and the federal communications commission continued that broadcasters may not intentionally distort the news and that rigging or slanting the news is the most heinous act against the public interest. for anyone that has decided to put their own spin on these stories to a great deal of mistrust and lying and calling the president treasonous, etc., that that is a heinous act

against the public interest because if we don't have trustworthy news sources and other individuals in these trials, then we are not a democracy. where does a person, where do you individually go to to find a trustworthy news? caller: i will tell you what. i did vote republican and you probably will not be surprised i watched fox news, but i find fox news brings out sources during most of their stories, but i do go to others. i go to msnbc to get their take, cnn. i have kind of gone back and forth to all these different news stations. 'sdo support the president team on this investigation, but i think i have a critical view

of it and i do think the news with some of the more liberal stations has been skewed to support a perspective and that is uncomfortable for our country. host: thanks for calling this morning. good morning to steve. defensethe president's team, pam bondi is laughable. i find it ironic she is going on and on and on about the bidens paid 150,000otten dollars for helping kuwait in their situation, you might want to check into that. as far as all this silliness, trump has lied over 3000 times, give me a break. host: we just heard our caller say she watches fox news. friends is and saying they agree john bolton

needs to testify, i guess it will happen since fox gave their okay. in midland, georgia, we say hello to michelle, democrats line. caller: good morning. bill scanlan, you have allowed all this white trash to call in this morning and smeared joe biden's name. i sit here day by day because i own my own business. host: i would take issue with you calling our callers that name. we allow anyone to weigh in with their opinion. caller: let me ask you something, what do you think we do when you allow them to call and all this trash like this? you are for the republican party and not for us democrats. let me put you on notice --

demographics on our side. call30% trash they themselves, they have to come up against us and we are armed and ready and as for joe biden, i droppedre if joe biden a stick of dynamite and blew that white house up, he will get i candemocrat block vote find. i would never vote for those white nazis and white nationalists. host: we are taking your calls

and comments on the impeachment trial as the president's defense team wraps up today. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. independents and others, 202-748-8002. you can send us a text. that line, 202-748-8003. oklahoma city, next up. our independent line, it is barbara. caller: hello? host: hi, barbara. caller: bear with me, i am nervous. i just heard this about the electoral college, that they do not have to vote the way the and to me, i don't see what -- how we have an election? theironly going to be opinion and their vote. i never heard that growing up, they told us that could not

happen. , i just impeachment can't believe we are going to he doesesident tell us not have to mind subpoenas and none of his people does not have to mind subpoenas and doesn't have to give documents and things no other president has ever done that and get to stand democrats,d tell tell everyone to hate democrats. hatemongering and you are christians? he is pro-life? bordere extends to the and the first time in our custody 6 kids in our have died. these pro-lifers don't seem to care for anything like that. ist: jodi says when you say

have all the documents to prove my case according to the president and withhold those documents, it is hard to believe you. we have been lied to before. rick says we are arguing about whether to allow witnesses at a trial? a trial in the united states? we will read more about that story and this one, republicans are afraid to allow witnesses in a trial in the united states? doug on our democrats line, welcome. caller: good morning, bill. i had a question, but your it for me.swered i know you can go to your website to see the next guest -- it would help the people educate themselves a little bit and i think it would be a good deal. i have a couple comments.

it sounds like bolton is starting to squeal a little bit and i thought trump would say he did not know him for a while, but i guess he will admit to knowing him. the thing i would like to point to in this investigation is when he asked -- the corruption deal, when he wanted the investigation, he did not have to put out witnesses, i am sure one of those people, i am not sure if it was taylor or sondlan d, but he announced to investigation and did not continue the investigation. if that was the intent, that makes him sound guilty on -- and on the 34 soldiers in iraq that suffered brain damage that trump says a headache, if trump knocks and theyr 2 in iran don't have a patriot missile at our base across the border and have them protecting saudi oil

fields, it makes you wonder who is in charge. i think maybe general trump is in charge and that is another reason he should be fired. republicans cannot stand the truth. host: we had a question on twitter about how the process would be handled if there were witnesses. john mcardle, what did you find out? host 2: let me remind viewers of how we get to that point before we talk about how they are handled. attorneyspresident's finish their last day of presentations, we expect 16 hours of questions and then the senate will take up this idea of whether to even call witnesses. they will have debate, they could even go behind closed doors for that debate before they vote. if they decide to have

witnesses, there is further deliberations and votes on which witnesses and documents they will subpoena. if we get to the point where they subpoena specific witnesses, here is how senate resolution 480 three, the organizing document for how the impeachment trial would be conducted, this is what it has to say about that process. if the senate to agrees to allow the house of representatives or the president to subpoena witnesses, the witnesses shall be deposed and the senate shall decide which shall testify pursuant to the impeachment rules. no testimony shall be admissible unless the parties have had an opportunity to depose such witnesses. even if a witness is called, that doesn't necessarily mean they would be appearing on the floor of the senate to give testimony, that deposition process usually takes place behind closed doors, that is what we saw in the house

impeachment effort. that is a longer process that could take weeks and that is why the speculation is if witnesses are called, this trial could extend into february. host: just a reminder of the timeline, the president's schedule to give the state of the union next tuesday, february 4? host 2: a busy day following the iowa caucuses on monday. host: this is from the guardian, the headline, u.s. confirms a jet crashed in afghanistan, but disputes it was downed. taliban claimed they shot down the plane, the military confirming one of the aircraft crashed in eastern afghanistan, but said there was no indication the crash was caused by enemy fire. spokesman claimed they shot down the territory -- the aircraft over the territory.

we go to the democrats line. caller: am i on the air? host: yes, you are. caller: i wanted to have an observation made. there was a lady calling about -- fcc and the rules of and the rules of how the media is supposed to conduct themselves. clairvoyant or does your program have previous collars on the day after? it has happened a few times that it seems to me you have the same callers calling because they say the same thing. host: we try not to have that happen, we ask that you give yourself 30 days between calling the program. kenneth on the republican line. c-span,good morning, good morning, america.

even thoughding is this is a political trial, but in any trial in the united states, the prosecution has to bring forward the evidence. the defendant never has to supply the evidence for the prosecution. and all these other people to testify, that is up to the house, that is not up to the senate. like if it was a regular trial, president trump would not have to allow any witnesses because -- he is the one trying to throw him out of office or someone trying to get him on a felony. he does not have to present the evidence, the prosecution has to present the evidence. that is the reason this whole

thing is a joke. the woman from georgia, she insulted everyone in america, shame on her and have a good day. host: frank in oregon on our independent line. what do you think? caller: good morning. i have been listening and i love c-span. i listen to c-span and change from fox for months until i got thrown out of my health club because i kept doing it. it is absurd people believe donald trump after he has told close to 17,000 lies in office. notng the iraq war, i was happy with either party. i think 28 democrats voted to go into iraq. only one republican voted against going into iraq and that was because people were afraid of fox news. now we have a fox news president

and i think it is time for senators and the republican party to stand up and back the truth for a change. host: we are showing you the arguments from yesterday, today is the final day for the defense team to present arguments. yesterday focused on the argument the ukrainian aid was legitimate because of the president's corruption concerns. [video clip] >> witness after witness testified confronting ukrainian corruption should be at the forefront of u.s. policy toward ukraine and they testified the president had long-standing -- the house managers however told you that it was laughable to think that the president cared about corruption in ukraine. but that's not what the witnesses said. ,ccording to ambassador volker

president trump demonstrated that he had a very deeply rooted negative you ever came -- ukraine based on test corruption. that's a reasonable position according to the ambassador, most people who know anything about ukraine would think that. testified that i think the president has quite publicly said that he was very skeptical about corruption in ukraine. he's not alone. because everyone has expressed great concerns about corruption in ukraine the house managers have said that the president's concern with corruption is disingenuous. they said that president trump did not care about corruption in 2017 or 2018 and he certainly did not care about it in 2019. that's their words. not according to ambassador -- yovanovich,

testifying that president trump shared concern with president poroshenko in their first meeting in the oval office. one was that meeting? in june of 2017. host: we welcome your calls" months -- your calls and comments. host: for democrats --for democrats (202) 748-8000, for republicans (202) 748-8001, for independents (202) 748-8002. john roberts will call the senate to order, but he has other concerns as well. got a the supreme court lot of attention yesterday, as reuters pointed out, the supreme

court gave the go-ahead for one of president trump's hard-line immigration policies, allowing his administration to implement a rule denying legal permanent residency to certain immigrants deemed likely to require government assistance. there was ae request to block the so-called public charge policy, while litigation continues. criticized as a wealth attached that would keep and itwhite immigrants carried the day yesterday. plenty of reactions from members of congress and others. here is senator kevin cramer of north dakota, a republican, calling it a major win for the rule of law. example of the president ensuring that those we

welcome into our country will be able to continue to our rocketship economy. and then there is alexandria cossey of cortez, saying this is shameful, america should not have a wealth test for admission. it's a place where millions of people are descendents of immigrants who came with nothing and made a life. the american dream is not a private club with a cover charge. is grace, calling it a drug cone in rule, saying it will deny immigrants housing, health care, food, and other basic needs. she went on to say that she is introducing the no public charge deportation act to remove public charges as a ground for immoral.on, calling it and former vice president reacting this new saying no family in search of a better life should be denied permanent residency because they don't

meet a wealth test. the united states of america should be welcome and open to all, not just the wealthy. host: this has been a principal source for the experts in the advance of release of the john bolton's -- of john bolton's book, he was concerned that trump did favors were autocratic leaders, maggie haberman writing that the former national security advisor privately told william barr last year that he had concerns that president trump was effectively granting personal favors to autocratic leaders of turkey and china, according to an on -- according to a public manuscript. by pointingesponded to a pair of investigations in this country saying he worried mr. trump created the appearance that he had undue influence over what would typically be independent inquiries, according to the manuscript. barrng up his point, mr. mentioned conversations mr. trump had with the leaders,

president erdogan of turkey and president xi of china. you can read more at the new york times.com. back to your calls, on twitter we are @cspanwj. did a -- a commendable job, and they actually committed a crime, the first parts and impeachment in history and the house did not complete or prove their case area but on the other hand -- case. but using the doj and the senate helps ensure an investigation and the rule of law and will protect american citizens were ultimately cleared. having a foreign leader announce an investigation only harms american citizens, and personally benefits the president. in this one says republicans want to make a one-for-one deal on witnesses with democrats, but they have the votes to call anyone they want. if they want hunter they need only one vote, what are they trying to pull to get some crack to sign onto that senate,

destroying joe. on the democrats lined this morning. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm a third-generation 42 year democrat. i had to tell you, that gal from georgia, the last time i looked in my trash bag, it comes in all colors, even black. calls,u take your phone each number has a dedicated number, how do you take them, one at a time? or do you jump around? ,ost: we take them as they come we try to alternate between republican, democrat, and independent, but pre-much as they come. -- as for, as they the impeachment, i'm an independent thinker and maybe miss georgia better do more of that. democrats embarrassed me. i will never change anything else, that's what my family has been, but i will tell you one thing, they have put shame on the democratic party.

comes ingeorgia, trash all colors. thank you. host: sylvia, in virginia, on the republican line. caller: i hope that john bolton is called as a witness. i hope they put his book on hold first before he is. and the professor from uva, larry savage, i listen to him and he feels there's enough evidence to convict. thank you. annapolis,na, in maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. hello. i'm an independent, and i'm an attorney. i wanted to express my appreciation to the defense counsel for beautifully representing the rule of law yesterday and on saturday. i'm appalled to hear that even after people had an opportunity

with the defense counsel presenting their case, they are still not able to understand our constitution and how our system theovernment works obstruction of congress charge is not a crime according to the constitution. be bribery, treason, or high crime or misdemeanor. it has to have some sort of a crime. even though this president, many people don't like him, not liking him is not a crime. you cannot have a witness to unknown -- about non-crimes. it is shocking to me that people want to call bolton, to talk about what? because obstruction of congress is not a crime. abuse of power is another charge, it's not a crime.

crime,f power is not a because it's not treason, bribery, or any other type of high crime or misdemeanor. i thought the professor was beautiful when he testified in the house. i also believe that professor dershowitz is wonderful and he's a democrat. so the way the defense presented the case was wonderful, they were talking about process. how unfair the process was. how is it that the defendant has no right to call his attorney, how in our country don't have the right to face your accuser? whether you are the president or joe blow. if someone is accusing you, like the whistleblower, you should be able to confront and look in their eye. host: so let me ask you, as an attorney, on your points, does a muddy the waters at all for the defense attorneys to bring in a call for investigation of hunter

biden? caller: as an attorney, hunter biden is the most -- yes, in every trial -- when some but he does something you ask why did i -- why did they do that. while they have a motive. what is the motive? the corruption. if hunter biden was not corrected, and joe biden is not corrupted, then it does not help the president. so the president had a reason, it's called motive, and if the motive is justified, if somebody does something wrong, and they are justified of what they were doing, then yes, let's see the motive. hunter biden is a critical piece of motive, but still, i don't think hunter biden should be called and i don't think john bolton or anybody else should be the chargesse themselves, like abuse of congress, which is not -- this is a made-up term, or abuse of

those are not crimes. cena matter what hunter biden says, no matter what john bolton says, or mick mulvaney come or whoever, those people are irrelevant, really, but the charges themselves are fake. host: dana, thank you. to caroline, in arlington, virginia, good morning. caller: good morning. democrat, andtive i just want to say that i see a lot with this trial and i really appreciated the last caller who .as an attorney how -- attorney. i feel like this is a zoom in and zoom out moment, you zoom in phone is so small, one call. how can we remove a president over one phone call? that doesn't seem right.

we can't set that precedent. on the other hand, if you zoom out, and this is indicative of a larger problem with this president, where he does not follow the rules. i'm sorry we had a -- are you there? go ahead and finish up. oh i think we lost her. thank you for selling in. this is susan, the washington bureau chief of usa today, many listeners, including you, the voter, the prosecution, defense, the house speaker, democratic presidential hopefuls are stuck in the campaign trail. advocacy groups and others in the gallery have various audiences in mind, that helps explain why they often seem to be talking past each other and occasionally living on different planets. and a wider view here of the audiences she thinks that are being focused on in the impeachment trial.

of course, president trump, primarily, as the president as a watcher, republican senators who might support a subpoena, lisa murkowski, mitt romney, susan collins, and lamar alexander. the 100 senators, the u.s. public, 100 38 million voters in 2016 and of course focusing on the iowa caucuses. that's coming up on monday with in,517 potential caucusers the democratic caucus in iowa. to dale, in bethlehem, pennsylvania. go ahead. you gave more time to that attorney than anyone else all morning. the country does have many right-wing attorneys, like her. they know that hunter biden what that -- that joe biden was there to fire a corrupt prosecutor and all of europe was behind him,

but we have to listen to this they know that he was fighting corruption over there. that's why he was placed in that position. this man in the white house, refusing to send the money to an honest president, who ran against corruption, but he sent the money to the corrupt isn't that amazing. thank you. host: thank you. more of your calls in a moment, john bolton, and more. let's hear from john next. guest: a lot of questions yesterday about the timing of the revelation in bolton's book about his conversations with the president, tying the aid to investigations into the bidens, that's what john bolton apparently wrote about for dozens of pages in his book. that's from the new york times report from sunday.

this is looking into the back story, john bolton and his publishing team denying claims that they leech the details of his -- leaks the details of his unpublished manuscript on this issue. the statement from bolton and his team saying there is absolutely no coordination with the new york times or anyone else regarding the appearance of the information about his book. the name of the book, the room where it happened, this is the , sayingt from bolton any assertion to the contrary is unfounded speculation. it was yesterday in the wake of the new york times report that we saw reporting about the original letter to the white house, when the manuscript was submitted to the national's record management division by john bolton's lawyer back on december 30. we saw the release of that original letter, talking about the timeframe for this publication, and some indication

that bolton's lawyers were pointing their fingers at somebody and that process, whether at the white house or somebody in the records division review process. they review all these types of manuscripts for classified material. so we are still waiting to see how these revelations came out, particularly the timing of this. a few tweets from a few members of congress about john bolton, the is nancy pelosi, after revelation, ambassador bolton reportedly heard directly from trump that aid for ukraine was tied to political investigation with the refusal of the senate to call for him and other relevant witnesses and documents is even more indefensible. the choices are clear, our constitution or a cover up. to some of the senators looking to run against president trump in november, this is elizabeth no -- there iss

a witness waving his hand in book around, and the truth will come out one way or another. that thereers saying must be a witness. and the republican congress men from arizona saying that democrats are using their allies in the deep state and left-wing media to advance their dreams of removing the president from office, house democrats had a chance to subpoena ambassador bolton, they did not, so they can close the records without their testimony. host: how are you able to stay on top of all the different tweets from members of congress in particular? are they aggregated? ,uest: a great way to do that as i'm sure you use often, we have a list at c-span with the most updated list of the members of congress, and several lists about congressional reporters, presidential candidates, probably 15 or 20 lists

maintained by our social media team and you can search directly into those lists of those specific people. that's the way we try to keep on top at least out -- of what members of congress and these various groups are thinking about during the show. host: thank you. we had a call or come a few minutes ago, she said she was an attorney and may legal arguments against impeachment, a few responses on twitter. that obstruction or abuse resulting damage and is a crime or misdemeanor and was used 1998, scheming to cheat an election, if following through, would damage voting rights, justice scheming to hurt an ally company -- country affects election. and another says abuse of power is an impeachable offense, the president's attorney is on his defense team, and argued yesterday on the issue of executive privilege. [video clip] >> you have testified before the house, saying we have three

branches of government, not two. if you and preach -- impeach a president and make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to court, it's in abuse of power. it's your abuse of power. with regard to executive privilege, it was. it nadler, who called executive privilege and other nonsense. when attorney general holder refused to comply with sabrina's, president obama invokes executive privilege, arguing compelled disclosure would be inconsistent with the separation of powers established in the constitution. executive power and other nonsense. manager schiff wrote that the white house's assertion of the acted of privilege was backed by decades of precedent which has been recognized and has recognized the need for the president and his senior advisers to receive candid advice and information from their top aides.

executive privilege. and other nonsense. the nonsense, and we talked about this the other night, is to treat the separation of powers and constitutional privileges as if they are is best us in the ceiling tiles. you cannot touch them. back to your calls and comments, laura, on the open and -- the independent line, from ohio. caller: my original response that i wanted to say, i feel like every witness should be testifying. including joe biden. i'm rather ashamed of joe biden, he should set an example that if you have nothing to hide, testified. concerned, he's not responsible for what his son does or doesn't do. his son is grown and i can control my grown children.

-- i cannot control my grown children. a subpoena from congress is not a crime, then everyone of us should not have to compel ourselves and go to be subpoenaed for our local courts. if they are not held accountable to answer to a subpoena and be punished for not doing so, why is the common man? why are the politicians and government employees about the common man? nobody has been able to justify that yet to me. if you can please show me some justification, show me, please. tot: thank you laura, go sarasota, florida, to hear from virginia, on the republican line. caller: we all know that this impeachment is a farce. what i want to know is whether they are going to go after the people that are impeaching the president. host: how should they go after

them virginia? caller: we know they are all corrupt. they've been stealing and lying and cheating for years. and they have to be brought to justice. until we start from the bottom, and drain the swamp, we are not going to have a good country. host: an opinion piece from mark davis, radio talk show host says impeachment diary day six, the bolton book diversion. he writes in here that the white house, his white house exit, bolton's, in september, was not on the best terms. who an old-line hawk no-nonsense clarity on global evils appealed to trump at the outset. he's willing to engage the u.s. military in ways that trump will never favor which that the stage for a frosty breakup, which was probably never will. but bolton is no james comey, seeking to monetize his

departure with a newfound hobby is a trump tormentor. the bolton book will not be a knife in his ribs anymore than the testimony would be. the story of his national security advisor days will surely contain first-hand knowledge of trump's attitudes towards ukraine, including any accompanying curiosity over why the world hunter biden was getting rich there. on the democrats line, in fort worth, texas, shirley. caller: hello. good morning. please allow me as much time as those two republican white ladies. i'm appalled at listening to all of this rhetoric. ,f president trump is so great and i want to pose this question to white women and black women, how many of you would marry him? let your daughter date him? let him become a principal to your children?

i think none of you would. do you want to principal at the high school using that language around your children? at a jr. high? at an elementary school? he does not represent president, he represents a thug. and it's time for people to admit that. and barack obama was in office, they went over and over again that he told one lie. bese are supposed to christians, and they sit back as this man tells 15,000 lies, but you christians, that's ok, he can tell these lies. he's destroying this country and what a president is supposed to represent, representing all of the people, getting on national tv and calling american citizens ches and all kinds of

names, no christian would sit back and accept this. you say you love jesus, jesus was not about calling people names. and then you talk about the subpoenas, we have to submit to does trump think he's above the law? if barack was in office he would have to submit to a subpoena and everybody would say he had to. he's not a king. we have to stop treating him as a king, and stop making excuses. as a parent, we know when our children are lying. and when we are grown, we know when a person is lying because everything keeps coming out. and you have a criminal to testify against him, you don't to testifyh member against another criminal. it takes another criminal to tell what they did. host: that's shirley, in texas.

we will hear from daniel, in pennsylvania next. toler: i'm going to respond your previous caller, first of all, with the subpoena issue. crime to not comply with a congressional subpoena. it's called contempt of congress. that's not what they charge the president with, they cannot charge him with that because executive privilege is exempt from that statute. so they made up a term called obstruction of congress. it doesn't exist. , so a little education for the callers out there saying that he ,as to comply with a subpoena where if he did not comply with that, there is an actual statute but executive privilege is exempt for a reason. back to the comment about obama telling one lie. if you think you told one lie, you are not paying attention. he told lies about fast and furious, congressional subpoenas

regarding the documents when a border patrol agent and an american citizen died. he lied about benghazi, said it minionsdeo, told his too. four americans died, including an ambassador and two veterans. onto the impeachment trial. job toot the senate's present evidence. they are there to hear the evidence that the house collected. that's it. they are to judge that evidence. that's it. there was this gigantic rush to get this through as quickly as ansible, because we have upcoming election. well, they had methods, they have avenues available to them subpoenas, including a subpoena bolton, had they subpoenaed him, and it was

denied, and it did not even go to court. regardless of how long that cake -- takes, there's ways to fast-track that. it's all an excuse, this is about 2020. nothing more. nothing less. host: daniel, saying surprise, john bolton had the goods. the editorial writers saying it's just possible that common sense and reality have a shot at prying open the doors of the senate chamber after all. after republican senators claimed that it was a perfectly -- to the present entree without any witnesses, if you are showing signs of recognizing that the truth matters, or at least of the american people believe it does. what has changed? shocking but not surprising revelations from john bolton's book manuscript, which the new york times reported over the weekend, have made it impossible to know what everyone has known, president trump withheld

hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to ukraine. to benefit himself politically, and against the strenuous objections of his top aides and both parties in congress. on monday morning, mitt romney of utah set i think it's increasingly likely that other republicans will join those of us who think that we should hear from john bolton. the writer saying it's refreshing to hear those words, yet the fact that such a statement is noteworthy at all tells you how far from responsible governance republicans have strayed. they hold 53 seats in the senate, yet the nation is waiting for just four to do the right thing and agree to call mr. bolton, the former national security advisor and other key witnesses to testify in mr. trump's impeachment trial. albert is on the republican line in inglewood, ohio. go ahead. caller: yes. i think that they ought to take

a bill and get it out there so that none of this crab can never happen again. our people are spending our taxpayer money on all of this. it should be charged back, if they cannot come up with proper impeachments. they should be able to come up with the real things. crab.st bogus political -- crap. cindy, in fort lauderdale, florida, on the deck at sign. caller: i've watched the entire house and the senate, four things comes to mind, first, the burisma case could go all the

way to the bp oil spill and i'm amazed that nobody's investigated that. illegal,o, nepotism is at the one convention of the united states signed off on, so what joe and hunter biden did is a crime and is punishable by prison according to the law. say i'mfor anyone to going to send $400 million of taxpayer money and not make sure that this corruption isn't happening is ridiculous, to play democrat versus republican over 400 million tax dollars. and remember, it was the ambassador who requested this, not the president. if you don't think it's right then you should lay near congress because congress has the budget, democrat or republican's. it's not a corrupt president but a corrupt congress. that's number two. number three, for those who don't understand what the elector it does -- elect tori it

sureectoriate, to make the democrat, republican, whig, tory, forever, their job is to decide who has the best plan for the country, democrats have had to win that way as well. so to claim that a republican president one that way is the critical race. -- is ludicrous. 4, 1 of the things that the people of the united states have said, repetitively to their congress is to stop the taxation without representation. that's already with this country was founded on. and it has been since 77 -- 1776. been illegal to tax people in the united states for the people of another country. it,yet congress keeps doing republican versus democrat, so put the blame on the correct people, and if you don't like

what's going on, reelect your congress. host: you said you watched all of the proceedings in the house and senate, how do you keep track of it all? caller: one thing in particular that gets me on both sides, the professor who testified yesterday basically said that the house did not word it correctly, it's called contempt of congress. but that's not what he was charged with. so the democrats really are not trying to impeach him because the democrats knew what the proper wording was. they have lot agrees to. so they really meant to impeach him, they would have charged him correctly. ridiculous to charge him with that, instead of contempt of congress, which they had the ability to do. host: the trial resumes at 1:00 and the defense team will finish up their arguments today with live coverage of the senate on

c-span two. the houses here on c-span, they come in at 10:00 for their morning speeches and legislative business at noon. we mentioned yesterday that they passed legislation for holocaust remembrance day. our capitol hill producer tweeting about what's ahead, saying the house will vote on a resolution condemning the iranian government which cracks down on legitimate protest in ben and legislation will debated, limiting future u.s. military action against iran when in the legislative part of their day getting underway at noon. from the washington times this morning, about the stock markets, stocks take a tumble as virus fears sparks. the dow jones industrial average was sent down by more than 450 points as investors grapple with fresh worries about the spread of a new virus in china that threatens global economic growth . it gave the dow the first

five-day losing streak since early august and handed the s&p 500's worst day since early october. both were off by 1.5% read the latest out of selling on wall street came after china announced a sharp rise in the cases of the virus. brookfield, wisconsin, good morning. caller: good morning. think that truth matters. we ought to focus on the truth. c-span, you had the rnc spokeswoman yesterday or the day before, and she was lying, on-air, and there's really no pushback. wasmentioned that ukraine interfering in the u.s. election, that was refuted. theplay the video clip of

current fbi director at the time, but not what dr. fiona hill said in congress in her sworn testimony. she is the expert on that matter, not the rnc spokeswoman, but that was not projected at the time. it becomes a problem, because a lot of people listen to you and they believe these things she says. the other point that she mentioned, which has been mentioned a lot, which is that the president provided military aid to ukraine where the previous administration did not. that's also not true, you should listen to fiona hill -- fiona hill's testimony in congress because she addresses that point. saying that when obama was in the house, the military analysts determined that the ukrainian to handleot equipped the javelins. they were unable to manage it.

that was the reason the military and was not provided in that fashion to them. host: we welcome the critique and you pointed out some corrections we do appreciate that. john is joining us from the studio, what's happening? guest: keeping an eye on the home state newspapers of some of the key republican senators that are being watched here as we move closer to what we expect will be a friday vote on whether there will be additional witnesses and the impeachment trial. i want to point out what's happening on the op-ed on some of those papers. ,his is emily, her column today romney should stand for fair impeachment trials. over to the denver post, colorado is the home state of cory gardner, also seen as a key fortor and possible target democrats in november, jonathan bernstein with his column today saying the trump impeachment smoking gun, looking to john bolton as that smoking gun.

i also wanted to point out some of the senatorial reviews of the performance of ken starr during yesterday's impeachment defense, the former independent counsel on the floor for quite a bit of time yesterday, this was senator chris murphy of connecticut, democrats saying you could hear a pin drop that ken starr has the gall to lecture the senate on how the age of impeachment has been so dangerous for , mouth hang open on the democratic side, famous alanis morse song rattles in my head. ironic is what he's referring to. and after listening to ken starr about fairness, it's like listening to jesse james talk about banks. talking about the due process rights of a president of his mad and bitter pursuit with president clinton, the jalvert of impeachment.

and marsha blackburn saying he testified under oath, with adam schiff refusing to follow suit. document delete impeachment hiager, what does he have to is her question. and one more comment on ken starr, this from the new yorker, the bolton bombshell and the unwaveringly pro-trump gop. you can read it yourself but one thing she says that the only words that mattered yesterday, uttered by ken starr, were the ones i did not cross his lips. which was john bolton. host: we will talk about john bolton and impeachment until 9:00, and then we will be joined by tom steyer, presidential candidate. let's go to houston, texas, vicki, on the democrats line. caller: good morning. i would like to say this, i think a lot of people are trying , by thethis complicated

way he has already been impeached, he's in trial to be removed. is not complicated, this is a simple matter. the constitution says you're not supposed to go out and have a foreign government investigate a private citizen of the united states without a warrant. time the u.s. house of representatives tried to do their job, the president of the united states blocked them. that's why the other article is in a position for them to use that. .nd i would like to say this everybody continues on the , and every time i hear this, i heard it yesterday, i listen to it every day, because i listen every day.

i love c-span. president trump -- president obama -- present trump had 16,000 lies. and we are going around trying to destroy biden, how stupid would it be, a vice president, working for eight years being corrupt. think about that. he hasn't done anything wrong and he cannot control his son, nor can i control my children. the cause is not complicated. went toe attorneys that school, that's awesome, but a lot of them are trying to confuse the public. like that lady said earlier. if i get subpoenaed i have to go answer the subpoena. people intoect 535 our congress and we can't get anything done?

up.on't elect them to size this president has lied 15,000 times and you want to tell me that hunter biden is the issue, when everybody and his family is doing something outside of this .ountry this is off-topic and you can stop me but we have people in the military that are flying not talkingere about that. we have people's children that are not able to read and write and were not talking about that. republicans are so caught up in trying to defend a criminal. i'm a christian and i know for sure that if jesus came back .ight now he would be offended we have to rebuke lies. we have to rebuke those who do not tell the truth. host: we have richard, in bad acts, minnesota --

actsr: actually that's bad michigan. host: i'm sorry, that was my fault. let me correct myself. thank you. go ahead with your topics. caller: i have a process question. the subpoenas that the house issues that are an argument, is that still an open legal question? whether they are valid or not? if john could check that, there are arguments both ways, i just want to know if they are invalid, why didn't the house just hit resend on their emailing change the date and here's a new one. and now it is valid. host: thank you for that richard. took crystal, in wilmington -- it inrystal to crystal,

wilmington, delaware. caller: i would like to make a few statements. i have watched all of the house, all of the senate proceeding so far. it amazes me that there are people still out here missing the point. the point is if these people in the house that are bringing these charges actually believed that the president did something wrong, what happened to being charged with bribery? they had a focus group, no quid pro quo, we're supposed to be too dumb to understand that? really? there are no high crimes or misdemeanors charged. bolton, mulvaney, or anyone else to testify, there's no way they could have

had that happen. but we are supposed to believe that they are in this mad rush? so you're telling us that you cannot do justice because you are in a hurry? and you could not get held up, but you want to flip this over to the house and request more witnesses to hold at the house -- i mean the senate in this long, drawnout request for witnesses? that would stop the senate from taking care of its business, like appointing more conservative judges, which really, i believe, as part of the whole smear in the first place. and then to act like you don't understand that the president and his immediate cabinet have vital national security information. these people who say i cannot believe that i could be subpoenaed, but they can get out of it.

do you hold national security information? is anybody talking to you about things that could jeopardize our foreign relationship across the world? no. you are not the commander-in-chief nor are you in the close circle. that's the bottom line. this is a capital journal column, the headline, bolton, long a fighter, now a wildcard. he points at the john bolton's reputation among democrats, the same democrats eager to hear him testify was so toxic that president george w. bush had to slip them into place as the american ambassador to the united nations while congress was in recess, because the prospects of winning senate confirmation were so dim. john is next, in tampa, florida, go ahead. caller: good morning c-span. you guys are very nice.

but i think you need to push back on some of the callers, like the last caller for example. i have heard a lot of callers say it's not the senate's job to call witnesses. that's not true. the senate has taken an oath to be impartial, so they ought to be able to call witnesses. that's a tool. democratsit about should not charge trump with obstructing congress. without the subpoenas being ignored, democrats also mentioned the fact that he tried to call and intimidate. normal president did that they would be thrown in the slammer. c-span you are doing a great job, but please put -- push back every now and then. if i say something wrong, please

push back on me. leesburg, in virginia, on the independent line. caller: thank you come i really like hearing the different perspectives even though i don't agree with them a lot. i've gone a 180 from not believing this was a sham, but -- to believing it is a sham but for other reasons. i think at this point when you cut the material witnesses, they have to testify. bolton, pompeo, mulvaney, and this guy, duffy that was withholding money that congress had approved. i think at this point in time there's no question that that has to happen. i'm still objective on this, i don't know if the president committed a crime, but i think that the republicans could be committing a crime right now by trying to stop this because they are basically covering it up. i try to be open-minded about this, but one more thing, there's an old song about be

careful with something that's just what you wanted to be. democrats should be careful, i don't know we can trust john bolton to get up there and not turn us into a platform so that he is the next trump. he could be the next presidential candidate and say yes, i told him where to put it. he's always been self driven, there's no other term. i appreciate c-span and i wish we could get to the truth and the republicans are not helping. host: i'm glad you're listening, it sounds like you are driving in. 90.1 c-span radio in the washington area. greg, on the republican line, good morning. virginia.d, greg? i will try this, greg, in stafford, virginia, go ahead. sir i would like to get mr. roberts to look into one of the questions i have, during

the nixon impeachment, how long did it take the judicial system after the tapes came out and nixon invoked privilege? the house keeps saying -- the managers keep saying it's critical and we don't have time to do that. that's one of the questions i would like to have. ahead and setent subpoenas and took it to the courts, it would not take three months. that's where we are at now. likether comment i would to let everyone know, three of the house members that are trying to impeach the president, dino they actually voted no -- do you know that they actually voted no for ukrainian aid? i think it's very political.

that's all i have to say. virginia, putting some more on john's plate. john, can you fact check the argument, if the house subpoenas were valid or not? i would like to know. the argument was about the full house had to vote to start impeachment inquiry, but not before subpoena was issued. saying that the house made a mistake focusing on abuse of power, he should've been charged with corruption, by definition it's a form of dishonesty or criminal offense undertaken by a person or organization entrusted with a position of authority to acquire illicit benefit or abuse of one's private gain. we will go to sue, in flat rock, indiana, on the democrats line. caller: good morning. comment on a few defense attorneys from yesterday.

talkinge raskin was about rudy giuliani, i noticed something. the one thing that i recall quite clearly as she was speaking about him was that he truth.e truth is not the when sean spicer was in the , whenhouse, and he lied kellyanne conway had to defend sean spicer for the lie, she said sean gave an alternative fact. that's what i'm hearing. but i would like to comment about patrick sillman. he showed a picture, of jerry nadler when the clinton impeachment was going on. nadler wasen mr.

overweight. there was no video that came with that tape. trumpt did that to please and the rest of the republican party. what he reminded me of was a snarky high school teenage girl. trumply do believe that needs to be removed. thank you for listening to me. host: you bet. john, we've got a lot of request to keep you running, searching in our c-span archives. tell us what you have. guest: i'm getting to the homework, i promise. i do want to note, since you're talking to tom steyer in a few minutes on our program, the latest from the 2020 campaign trail, including reminding viewers that president trump is holding one of his keep america great rallies tonight at 7:00, we are covering it on c-span,

it's in wildwood, new jersey, at the convention center. the oceanfront arena. here's a picture from outside the convention center. one american news network reporter showing that he estimates at least 5000 people in line as of 8:00 this morning, noting that the capacity is 7400. saying it's absolutely massive. we will see what it looks like on the inside later tonight. and we want to give you an update on the latest polling numbers from the campaign trail. several new polls out as we get further in to the primary and caucus season. the latest out of uc berkeley, california, has bernie sanders in the lead in california with 26%, elizabeth warren at 20%, joe biden at 15 percent, mayor pete at 7%. tom steyer at 2% in california.

this from new hampshire, the latest polling from the boston herald, their poll noting that sanders at 29% in the first in the country primary, biden at 22%, war and at 16%, mayor pete at 10%. and morning consult with their new national poll showing individual matchups against president trump, having joe biden in the best position against president trump in november, saying he would beat , bernie sanders comes in at 46% compared to trump's 41%. mayor pete has a four point edge, -- sorry bloomberg with a four-point edge, mayor pete with a two-point edge. host: and tom steyer is joining us in about five minutes at 9:00. the rally tonight, in wildwood, new jersey, it will be live on

c-span. pompeo,here about mike reuters with a headline that the u.s. state department bars npr reporter from pompeo's upcoming trip after a testy interview. they say the state department removed a national public radio the press pool where secretary 8 -- for secretary of state mike pompeo's upcoming trip on monday. this days after pompeo angrily responded to another journalist interview with him. the removal of michelle kellerman, part of the traveling pool of correspondence with pompeo, on his plan trip to the ukraine, u.k., belarus, and central asia, can only be seen as a retaliation for her colleagues interview. the state department's association said. to emmett, on the republican line, in the louisiana. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to see the republicans go along with the

democrats, strickler because i strictlye to see -- because i want to see that can of worms open. i would like to hear from the whistleblower, and all of the people that the republicans would really like. pompeo like to hear from , what all of them have to say. it would be interesting. i think that would be the way to go. i hope they do it. in boone, iowa, terry is next on the independent line. caller: i would like to comment on how this all started. this all started, this particular incident started with a bunch of disgruntled employees , basically. you have state department ,fficials, career nsa officials and they disagreed with trump's policy. then all of a sudden, they

circled their wagons, and trump thatot like the way yovanovitch was running her mouth so he got rid of her and they circled their wagons and ganged up and made up a whistleblower to bring this all through like they are. and i would like to comment on this page of bolton's book coming out. well who do you think brought this out? it just so happened that colonel vindman's brother works in the nsa and this book is getting looked at. how do you think this page suddenly appeared to the public? this was a democrat thing. vitamin a disgruntled -- colonel vindman because people started slamming him about his opinions are this is all about opinions. this is not a crime, this is an opinionated witchhunt. to steve, in brooklyn, new

york, on the democrat line. caller: hello. good morning. i wanted to respond to the caller that just hung up, but i want to make a quick example. when people call and they always -- when people call and say that trump is not being charged with bribery or conspiracy, i just want to give you an example -- if somebody is charged for his crime, there is murder in the crime, but you are not charged with murder, your trust with the hate crime because it is a greater crime. it covers the murder charge. you don't have to get charged for every single currently commute, you get charged for the greatest crime and everything else falls under that crying. --when people call in say trump's attorney keeps saying that -- he hasn't been charged with quid pro quo he doesn't

have to get charged without. is greater than quid pro quo because it covers everything. what bothers me, too is that as a democrat, i am saddened to know is that republicans need -- managers to convince them they need the democrats to convince them that our country is under attack. that bothers me. host: steve in brooklyn, we will get back to the conversation in particular on the impeachment in just a bit. coming up next, we will be joined from iona by democratic presidential candidate -- from iowa by democratic presidential candidate tom steyer here on "washington journal." ♪ announcer: washington journal mugs are available on c-span's new online store. checkc-span store.org and

out washington journal mugs and see all the c-span products. ♪ >> c-span. your unfiltered view of government. created by cable in a 1979 and brought to you today by your television provider. ♪ >> i had the impeachment trial of president trump, questions from senators. here is majority leader trent lott from the clinton impeachment trial. >> would try to make sure that the time stays pretty close to even as it go through the day. chief justice, i am sure, he will make the deliberations and the answers are fair. i do have the first question prepared to send to the chief justice, but i thought perhaps he had some further business you might want to address before i did that. >> yes, i would like to advise counsel on both sides that the chair will operate on a rebuttable presumption that

each question can be fully answered in five minutes or less. [laughter] [chatter] >> mr. chief justice, i do send the first question to the desk. announcer: the impeachment trial of president trump. live today at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span two, on demand at c-span.org/impeachment, or listen on the free c-span radio app. journal"ngton continues. host: c-span's campaign 2020 coverage continues. we are joined from des moines, iowa by democratic presidential candidate tom steyer. mr. steyer, good morning and welcome to "washington journal." guest: good morning. how are you?

host: doing very well. let's start with, why do you want to be president? guest: there are two big things that have to happen. one is i believe we have a broken government that has been purchased by corporations. job one is to get the government back off, by and for the people. as somebody for spend 10 years fighting and beating those corporations, i know that we can do it, and we need to d.c., including having 12 year term limits for congresspeople and senators. secondly, we absolutely have to deal with our climate crisis. i have said it is my number one priority and i declared a state of emergency on day one. do it from the standpoint of environmental justice. create millions and millions of , but weing union jobs have to do it come we have to get on it on day one. if we do those two things, take back our government so we can get the progressive policies that americans want, and control

our climate crisis, then i think we will be in a great position. if we don't, we will be in a lot trouble. host: focusing on the first point of euros on fighting corporate corruption in particular how do you think your background as an investor as an entrepreneur helps you do that best? guest: let me say this, bill, just so you know, i spent 10 years putting together coalitions of american citizens to take on unchecked corporate power, to take on oil companies over clean energy, make tobacco companies pay their fair share of medical costs, force utilities to move to clean energy. for 10 years i have been doing this and we have never lost. so i believe my background as an organizer, is a grassroots person fighting these corporations successfully for 10 years is the first part. as an investor, i understand the economy and what drives his corporations in ways that nobody else was running for president

does, and i believe that fact,a, will let me beat mr. trump because he is running on the economy and i think he is a fake. somebody has to go into detail and show that he is a fake and a failure as an economic president. but also, as president, i have the experience and the expertise to understand what is driving these companies, to know that we need a vibrant, competitive, innovative private sector, but these corporations can't control the government, they can't write the rules under which they are going to operate. host: joining us from des moines the caucus is six days away. what do you see as your path to the nomination. guest: -- guest: there is a poll out this morning about the 4 early primary states, which are iowa, new hampshire, nevada and south carolina. in the poll, it has me at 17%,

in third place. so my task is to do well in the 4 early primary states to build momentum, because those numbers have gone up virtually every day since i got into this race in july, to build that momentum into super tuesday. so this is really just a question of doing what i have been doing for the last seven months, which is seeing as many people as possible, making my case, letting them see who i am, then riding that momentum. host: we will give you a chance to hear from some of our callers. we will open up our phone lines for your input. 202-748-8000 is the line for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8002.ts, you can send us a text you have a question or comment for mr. 202-748-8003, but

include your name and where you are texting from. we have been talking about the senate impeachment trial. obviously, you may not get a chance to watch the trial itself, but what are your impressions so far, and how much is this coming up from people on the campaign trail? guest: let me just take you back a little bit, bill i am the person who started the need to impeach movement. over 8.5 million americans signed the petition that i thosed, and in addition, people called and wrote and emailed their congresspeople saying, please do the right thing and hold this corrupt president accountable. i believe those eight and a half million people are really what dragged washington, d.c. interceding this was a matter of right and wrong, not politically expediency or partisanship, but about protecting the country. so what i have said for over two years is what i want, what i believe those 8.5 million people

are demanded, is televised hearings with the administration officials under oath in front of the american people, explaining what happened so that we can make up our own minds. to me, what matters here is the court of public opinion, what the american people think. so i believe this will be a farce and a cover-up unless the administration officials like john bolton get in front of the tv cameras and let the american people here exactly what happened so that we can decide exactly how corrupt this president is. host: tom steyer, our guest until 9:30 eastern. we welcome your comments. laid in new york, on the republican line. go ahead. caller: sorry. because to me, the process of impeachment has been, at first glance, the american people, we actually don't know enough about tha legal issues.

and we are so swayed about the emotion of it, the political, republican business of it. but in the last three days, to hear and learn more about the law, more about what the constitution says, more about the seriousness of removing somebody from office, the office of the presidency, i am telling you, i am almost happy that nancy pelosi and the congress jumped the gun with their anger -- let's admit it, the whole nation is polarized -- the fact that they rushed ahead and held it, then it got confusing to the i really can't say in the last few days, especially ken starr, and frankly even seeing the chief justice sitting there, that we are in a court. we are not in the political arena. it is not the senate or the

house. they are sitting there as if they are the court, and they have put a seriousness in it. i believe the right thing will happen. and i am not sure that this reaches the level of impeachment. host: tom steyer, a very different view of impeachment than yours. guest: actually, i thought that was the responsible point. i think she was saying that she understands how serious this is. this isn't about partisanship, this is about a quart, where senators and the thief justice have sworn an oa to uphold the coast edition. and i think she and i agree with -- uphold the constitution. i think she and i agree with, let the american people see the truth and make up our mind in

this absolutely serious proceeding, to hold the president accountable just the way every other american citizen is held accountable. this is exactly what the founders wanted. what the people who wrote the constitution wanted, to let the american people make up our minds about our deepest values when they are under threat. in my mind, it is a foregone conclusion that mr. trump has done something wrong. but i know the court matters tolynn and the citizens of the united states, and i want them to see for themselves what happens when we make up our minds. host: what do you make of some republicans argument saying that the decision should be made by the voters in november this year? guest: if mr. trump isn't removed from office, then that will definitely happen. but there is something else going on here, which is, the

founders gave us impeachment and removal as a way of dealing with a corrupt president. i deeply believe we have a very corrupt president. ist this ukraine incident part of a pattern of behavior that he has engaged in since his first day in office, and this is a different statement about protecting the law, protecting the constitution and standing up for the system, for democracy itself, that says no one is above the law. no one gets to break the law on his behalf in this case, and to disadvantage the people of the united states. there is a right and wrong here that we have to stand up for. if the rich and powerful aren't subject to the law, then we don't have the law. that is exactly what this is about. did the president have to obey the law, or can he do whatever he wants the way a king would? that is as simple as this. host: whether you are in iowa or south carolina on the campaign trail, what is the top issue coming up?

is it impeachment or other issues? guest: i think the real issue in this campaign that i think is -- that i think i'm the guards almost everything is this question about, does the government serve the people of the united states or does it serve the biggest corporations and the richest people? i think that goes under virtually every single argument. when you're talking about health care, you're talking about a system where we are paying twice as much as other countries for the same or worse health care because corporations are making twice as much money. when talking about climate, --king about a question there is no scientific doubt that we should be acting on climate, and there is a way to do it that makes us better paid or healthier. but are we going to do what is right for the american people, or are we going to do what is right for the exxon mobil corporation and the people who run it?

wayy single question in its comes back to this idea of this government is broken, but it is serving corporations diligently and faithfully and it is during american people under the bus. that comes out in every question. and it is painful to go around this country and talk to citizens, perfectly wonderful, hard-working americans, and see how badly they are being treated by their government. it is upsetting. to me, it is a straight up question of right and wrong. and really, that is why i am so determined to break this corporate stranglehold, because it comes down to cruelty to americans. really from the time you are born to your last breath. and it is just wrong. election is this about and that is what are here on the campaign trail. host: let's go to john in philadelphia on the democrats line. caller: mr. steyer. hello. guest: good morning.

caller: how are you doing? guest: good. caller: you probably know this, but what you see above trump is all a game? it is all an act? in other words, when he says left, he means right. when he says up, he needs down. he plays chess. [laughter] he is a chessmaster. he is a highly regarded chessplayer. no, you are laughing, but -- guest: i am laughing because, look, he has his act, i agree with you. mr. trump has an act that he puts on. i know it. that heeel that, john, is a deeply corrupt president and supremely incompetent. had this actt just

that takes everybody's attention, but in fact, he is extremely incompetent in terms of getting things done to help the american people and to make our country stronger and safer. and it is a really funny, i agree with you, because the consequences of it are so bad for the american people. host: to the republican line it next and hear from terry in woodbridge, illinois. caller: good morning. i would elect ask him a couple of questions. one, i noticed -- i didn't know of him at all until president trump got an office. all of a sudden, he started spending millions and millions of dollars to campaign to have him impeached, before the president even g did anything wrong. so i was wondering -- you said over one million people signed the petition, by the way our

country runs is a majority. 53 million people put him in office. and the way you won -- the way you make your money is by capitalist, so why are you against the country picking your own president. host: ok, terry. terry, i believe mr. trump started to break the law virtually on his first day in office, that it is against the constitution for the president to take money from a foreign country, or private company, and he has done it virtually since the first day, getting payments through his real estate operations from foreign countries and from corporations seeking his favor. so i believe that he has been corrupt from the very first day and he has done everything he can to cover that up. the ukraine example which happened to an a half years into his presidency, it is just a

continuation of a trend that one.ed virtually on day and the 8.5 million people who signed the petition it wasn't one million, it was eight and a half million, were asking their congresspeople and the government to hold the president to account just to the way every single other american citizen has to live under the law. so in fact what they were asking for is for the president to be a citizen as well as the president. and that's exactly what the founders of the constitution put in, but if a president is corrupt, this is the method, and really the only method for removing him or her from office. so in fact, what we have been doing is just a straightforward patriotic act of trying to stand up for the country and make sure we are a country of laws. that in fact everybody lives under the same standard. that is the idea of being a democracy or a republic, we are all equal and nobody is above the law. host: i will give you a chance to weigh in on immigration.

the supreme court yesterday ruling 5-4, in a decision allowing the administration to deny green cards to immigration -- those in need of aid, u.s. aid. your campaign put out a statement about that. tell us about that and, what with this tire administration -- what would be the mr. steyer administration policy on immigration? guest: what you are referring to is the ruling saying that if you will come here, if you are poor, if you will start at the bottom and need some help to get going, that you can be denied a green card and you can no longer emigrate to the united states of america. that is completely contrary to our history. who haver centuries, been fleeing persecution or violence, or seeking a better life for themselves and their family have come here as an ambitious hard-working people

from all over the world to build a better life for themselves, and by the way, to build the united states of america. so the idea that we are no longer open to people who don't have a lot but want to work hard, and we are only open to people who have already got a sufficient amount of money that they don't need help, to me, flies completely in the face of the idea of what this country is all about. it is really taking away one of our greatest strengths, which is that people come here to work hard, improve their lot in life, and the whole country benefits from their hard work. my opinion about immigration is simple, we get to control our own borders, but immigrants make us stronger. mr. trump has politicized immigration. he has used it really to talk about race. he is not opposed to immigration, he is opposed to immigration by nonwhite people, and under those rules, he has inflamed his supporters. he has committed crimes on international law, but he has also tortured children, and he

has committed crimes against humanity. my idea about immigration is endtty simple, i would an his illegal and, in my mind, highly unethical treatment of people coming here, seeking sanctuary. i would go back to a lot of the obama-era policies including daca, i would end the ban, i would try to get comprehensive immigration reform for the 12 million people who have lived here and average of 15 years -- it is an open secret, everybody knows they are here -- they are working and school.ds go to i would give them legal status and a path to citizenship and i would go back to the idea that we control our borders. but having people come here and work hard and start a new life is not a bad thing. we can control it. but it is something that makes america stronger.

we should stop with this extremely racist rhetoric and attitude and realize that we are a very diverse country, and that is fantastic. as people come here and we become more diverse, it gets better. host: next, we will hear from ruby calling from las vegas on the independent line. caller: hello, mr. steyer? guest: hey, ruby. caller: my son is 28 years old. he is going to be crazy once he finds out i am talking to you because i had never heard of you. [laughter] i am a diehard kamala harris fan, but i was wondering, would you even consider having her as the nominee? also, i want the second question seeing you last night and i see this morning so i thought, i had better call. i know you are pretty open about reparations. we don't really need anybody to say what we need to think about,

you seem to be a doer. inant to know, did you get -- if you get income would you go ahead and knock this stuff out? you don't appear to be a talker, we want people to get it done. [laughter] guest: let me say a couple of things. i am from san francisco, and i have a lot of respect for kamala harris. i have known her for a long time. i consider her an outstanding senator and an outstanding person and friend, and i hope anything i do, i do with and alongside senator harris. in terms of race and reparations, let me say this, i am someone who believes in talking about frankly. i believe there is a substantial racial undertone and aspect to virtually every policy area in the united states of america. people talk about criminal justice in terms of race, and it

is absolutely there from policing,, to how we treat people who are incarcerated. when i talk about climate, i say to people, i am the only person who makes climate my number one priority. but i start in terms of environmental justice in the communities, basically black and brown communities overwhelmingly, where you can't breathe without getting asthma and you can't drink the water without getting sick. people think that climate is a straight up environmental issue. to me, there is a substantial racial undertone to it that needs to be addressed in terms of justice. what i have said is this -- policy comes out of narrative. i know you said i am a door, and i believe i am a door. that is what i believe my whole background says -- i know you said i am a doer. i am for reparations. but the way that i get to them is this, i would start a formal commission on race on my first day to retell the story of the united states from the point of

view of the african-american community. i would tell the truth both about the historic legalized prejudice and discrimination built into our constitution, but also of the contributions of that community to our country in terms of building the country and the moral leadership may have provided to all of us, including dr. king, but for generations before him and read up to today -- right up to today. i think after telling the true story of america, and the contributions, and the discrimination the african-american community has undergone, we will come up with correct ways to repair the damage that has been done, to acknowledge the past and to move on together, having come up with solutions of how to repair the damage. so i am a doer. and i absolutely believe in this. i think i may be the only person running for president who believes in reparations. who believe the time is due, and rights to do it now.

that is the way i believe in everything, to be blunt. to tell the truth and not to be scared of the truth, but to let the truth, so we can talk about how to do the right thing moving forward so that we can be the country we want to be. loving,n be the freedom equality and justice-loving country want to be, and we can actually be prosperous together, be strong together, be the america we have always thought we were and that we can be, and that we are going to be. host: you mentioned one of the early primary states, south carolina. we have a call from columbia, south carolina. robert on our democrats line. caller: good morning c-span good morning, mr. steyer. thank you for being on this morning. can you hear me? host: yes we can, go ahead. caller: we are a long-term family supporter. you came to south carolina back in the summer.

we were very impressed by your message. we want to do what we can to support you. number one, would you comment on say,transparency toward, the less fortunate people as far as achievement is concerned? i think elizabeth warren has a good message to try to get people educated, or allow opportunities for education. could you mentioned that, and also, let me just thank you. , fornd mayor bloomberg putting your money where your mouth is as far as running for office, for the highest office in the land. again, let me say, i admire your priorities as far as your initiative towards clean air and whatnot, because we are

burning the world down, and if we do, we have nothing to look forward to in this country. host: robert from south carolina, thanks. guest: robert, let me say this, i appreciate everything you just said. i really do. you asked me a specific question about what i think about education, so let me talk about education for second. my mom was a teacher in the new york public schools. she taught prisoners at the broking house of detention. i come from a family that has always had teachers and it and thinks that education is the means for self-improvement so that you can get further in life. i consider that to be an absolute obligation of the government and a right for every american, to quality public education from universal preschool through college, and for skills training for people throughout their life.

i think it is not only the way we create a prosperous country, where we invest in every american so that as a country, they do well, so we do well, but aalso believe that having quality public education is the only way we can have justice and mobility in our society. that every kid gets a chance to go as far as his or her talents and ambitions and hard work will take them. and i believe we are falling down on this job dramatically. i believe that not just do we not have enough money going towards education, i believe we have really, the republican party has looked at this as a investment. i view this as the absolute basic investment in the american people, in our future, and in our growth. so i would treat teachers completely different. i view them as the stewards of our future. i would put much more money into this system. and i believe that it is absolutely critical not just to

make college affordable for every american, but that we started a very early age to address issues for young people and make sure they are getting the support and education that puts them on the path towards a prosperous and productive life. that is the best investment we can make. i would dramatically change the way we spend money, they'll, dramatically. host: i wanted to ask you a question that may take a longer answer. here is how we started. charlie from pennsylvania tested us this -- i agree that we need to get corporations and the money out of politics. however, i don't hear any candidates running on this platform. if elected, how do you plan on implementing of policies with a partisan support? guest: look. bill. grassroots person, i am somebody who has always gone directly to the people. so i believe that this campaign

is largely about asking the question, what do americans care about and what are we going to do together? so if we have this campaign, and i go out and i have the momentum that i have, and people respond to me the way to have been responded, and i went, that makes -- and i win, that makes this issue, just as in 2008 1 awww ran -- he was running on health care, and he got into office and lo and behold, the thing he accomplished first was the affordable care act. so as far as i am concerned, we need to be asking the american people, and american people need to be asking themselves -- don't we need to take back this government from the people who bought it? the answer is yes. i believe this is the critical question in front of us. than the other people elected have to realize, that is the will of the american people. that that is the reason i will elected. they will have to either go along or realize they are going to get voted out of office, because this is what i am

running on, this is what i have to do, and this is what will re-create the american people want. the government serving the people, not the government corporations. if we do that, we are going to get a foot of a health care as a right for every single american. we are going to get quality public education -- we are going to get affordable health care as a right for every single american, a quality public education, and a living wage, so that a family can live on one wage. it is all within our capabilities in our power if the government serves the people and not the corporations. that is the issue in front of us. if the people speak they are done well going to get their way, and i am going to make sure that happens. anyone who stands in our way will get voted out of office. host: tom steyer's website is tomsteyer.com. joining us this morning from des moines. we really appreciate you being here? guest: thank you very much for having me. host: here on "washington

journal" for the remaining half hour or so, we will continue our conversation on the impeachment trial, which resumes with the final arguments of the defense team of president trump today at 1:00 p.m. on c-span 2. for your cause or comments, democrats, 202-748-8000, republicans, 202-748-8001, and independence and others, t,2-748-8002, and on tex 202-748-8003. keeping track of what members on the floor are saying. >> there have been questions from viewers on the impeachment process. i just wanted to come back and address a couple of them. one of those questions was about whether everything that has happened in the impeachment legal, because there was no formal vote at the very beginning of the impeachment inquiry by the house to begin that inquiry. you are asking whether subpoenas

issued to the house where legal because that step didn't happen at the very beginning. i want to take viewers back to october. this question was raised by one of the president's lawyers back at the beginning of this process, one subpoenas started to come out. the answer has to do with the case -- when subpoenas started to come out. the answer has to do with a case called nixon v. the united states, not richard nixon but a judge named walter nixon. he was concerned at the time about the process that he was submitted to after he was impeached. the project on government oversight takes a look at that case. the supreme court held in that case that because the constitution explicitly confers the impeachment power on congress, that the senate procedure that walter nixon was concerned with was not subject to judicial review. in short, they write their case law on the question about the

amount of process due to a president during an impeachment proceeding and what guidance there is that would need cap arguments about the process, the supreme court made it clear that when it comes to that was of impeachment, the senate has its final say, and through that case law, the house would then have final say on the impeachment process. so that was what was brought up after those arguments were made by the president's lawyers, that it is up to the house to create its own process. so because they didn't have the formal vote at the very beginning of the impeachment inquiry on the floor of the house, it doesn't do away with anything that has happened since the impeachment process, the house voting on subpoenas and the house band moving through the rest of his process, resulting eventually in the impeachment of president trump. and now here we are with the senate trial. the other question that a different caller asked had to do with the timing of president nixon invoking

executive privilege when it came to the watergate tapes. from the timing of the executive privilege to the eventual ruling by the supreme court that saw the tapes released, interestingly, that case -- not to be confused with the previous one -- that one was called a u.s. v. nixon. the previous case we talk about was nixon v. the united states. v. nixon was decided in 1974. if you go back in time, after the tapes were subpoenaed, edited transcripts of those tapes were released in april of 1974, but a formal claim of executive privilege was made by president nixon and his lawyers on may 1 1974. that case made it to the supreme 8, theargued on july supreme court making its unanimous ruling on july 24, 1974. months, afew

rather short time frame from the executive privilege being invoked, to the final decision by the supreme court. by the way, if you would like to read up on that case, a great place to go is constitutioncenter.org. the national constitution center website. the good folks there have talked to us in the past about both these cases, usb and, and nixon v.u.s. v. nixon, and nixon the united states. host: you have done. host: the hard work this morning. >> you are doing great, bill. that.thanks for this is from the "new york times" zero cooperation from prince andrew in epstein sex case. they write that ms. andrew issued a public statement saying he would be willing to help american law enforcement officials with their investigation into allegations of sex trafficking by jeffrey

epstein and his associates. fbi agent's and prosecutors took him at his word, reached out to his lawyers and asked to interview him. there was no response at all, a to three people familiar. on monday in a rare move, the u.s. attorney in manhattan publicly called out the prince for breaking his commitment, "today, prince andrew has provided cigna corporation," the present -- has provided zero cooperation," the u.s. attorney said. the impeachment trial resumes at 1:00 p.m. today. we go to john in wisconsin on the democrats line. caller: yes. can you hear me? host: weekend. go ahead. caller: all i want to say is that i believe trump is guilty based upon everything that came out about him. he has never admitted to anything somebody accused him of. he is probably the west resident we are ever -- worst president

we're ever going to have. i had a question for you announcers. are you guys planning to come to thednc when they come to wisconsin. host: are we planning to what? caller: be there in wisconsin and doing any speaking at the dnc. host: we plan to cover it. c-span will be there. thanks, john. -- this is julian. , when: saturday morning the president's team came out, there was a particular guy's philbin.patrick he spoke for 25 minutes. if you go back and listen, he

explained everything to your listeners. one thing he brought out with respect to the clinton impeachment was that there was a proposal, i think it was 581.sal 525, and proposal 525 took a vote of the full house to go to the inquiry the subcommittee was going to go into. they never did that. was another vote on the whole floor of the house, which gave subpoena power. that is why our president's men did not entertain the subpoena powers. and they had done it right, they would have gone to jail. this is a sham going on with nancy and nadler. he knows about it because he was in the prior impeachments. you need to go look at that and explain it perfectly to everybody. it takes 25 minutes. not that much time. host: we go to mark in fort lauderdale on the independent line. caller: good morning, and as

always, thank you for c-span. i am really sorry i missed tom steyer before. i like him and it would have liked to have the chance to speak to him. but seeing as how john did such a good job of checking into that forcase that you pulled up the caller that questioned some things, maybe since you guys library, youreat the commonly available youtube video -- actually, it is a video from senator mitch mcconnell before he was leader of the senate, going back to the 1999 clinton lengthhere he went on at about how important witnesses were. this is mitch mcconnell who was saying that. was ado you know if that floor speech? caller: no, he was being

interviewed on cnn. is, i guess the clip starting to spread around in response to what is going on here. here is my main point -- i am in left-leaning independent who, in fact, i am probably going to register, change my party affiliation to democrat so i can vote in the primary. so i am not going to call you on the independent line anymore. i am in favor of joe biden testifying in this impeachment thing, and i will tell you why, if he would voluntarily testify, go in and knock it out of the ,ark, really do a great job that would assure him being the nomination for the democrats. with a great, performance in that trial, he would slay trump.

on the other hand, it does take a chance, if you did a terrible job, it would be the end of his political career. but i think it is worth a damn seeing that he just can't bust out ahead of the other guys. that is pretty much it for me. host: 202-748-8000 is our text line. we have a couple of them here. full comments need to be released, not limited bits, maggie from michigan. from what i am hearing, the country needs to accept the fact that the president lie and cheat , and we need to get over it. is it back to obama, i not possible to move on? next on our democrats line. caller: thank you. i just want to point out that quid pro quo means tit-for-tat. iss for that, or else

extortion. bradberry is, i will give you this for that if you also do this for that -- bribery. [indiscernible] what boltonen if says is true then there is no problem. the problem is that quid pro quo bribery. more important, the purpose of the trial is to get to the truth and achieve justice. the senators are the jurors and judges. --ges have the right to [indiscernible] ofce the articles impeachment has been passed, there has been a steady stream of incriminating evidence and proves ornce that

corroborates what other people parnas andand lev bolton are willing to testify. there is a duty on behalf of the senators call these witnesses. host: all right, we will hear from bill in new york on the republican line. caller: thank you. before i give you my opinion on the impeachment, i wanted to ask mr. steyer how he felt when that video came out, when elizabeth warren and bernie sanders having an argument, and he tried to get in the middle to introduce himself to bernie sanders. i found it unusual because they had been on the debate and he had met him yet. but sanders brushed him off and walked away. i was just curious how he felt about that. maybe he is looking at him as vice president, who knows. but anyway, as far as the countries concerned, i wish

everybody would come together as we did in the old days, democrat, republican, independents, and support the president who is in at the time. at this time, it's the it is goodvoter -- that we have c-span because if you watch that, you can watch the whole trial uninterrupted and really learn things, like i did yesterday. but if the uninformed voter is only hearing from other people, you know, this guy is a liar, blah, blah, blah, but if you look at it, just look at your own situation, everybody look at your own situation -- unemployment is the lowest in history. and in a fair way, for all. we are safe. you don't hear much about isis anymore. the military is built up. our men and women in service need the back of the

president and they have it right now, that is very important as far as defense is concerned about our country. more, so is so much many good things, and if we could all back up each other -- and then there will be another election in four years, and people can speak and see what happens. i just wanted to get that across, that hopefully the uninformed voter will pay a little more attention. maybe to stations like yours. get on and listen and get a little more involved. and that is what i wanted to say. host: ok, bill. this is a journalist on rollcall's these, how democrats are making mcconnell, not trump, their boogeyman. she writes that while democrats on washington are attacking mitch mcconnell's management of the impeachment trial, it is his role in blocking house-passed legislation that is

getting the most campaign airtime so far this year she writes, that likely a preview of what is to come is the democratic congressional campaign committee's announcement on monday of a seven-figure cable and online ad campaign focused on the senate muddling up a bill in tending to lower restriction drug prices. democrats are using mcconnell as , world. trump speaks to the legislative and political realities confronting democrats this cycle. we go to hilton head, south carolina. on the line is jeffrey on the independent line. go ahead. caller: good morning. comment that io voted for donald trump is an independent, because he is a businessman. i felt that all the politics aside, he could perhaps do something which, in my opinion, for the good of the country, he

has done for the last three years. and i wanted to say to all the democrats out there that if they want to cast stones, let them ves.t think of their own sel basically, that is my comment. is just aboutte three hours away from the resumption of the impeachment trial in the chamber live on c-span two. john mcardle joins us next. what do you have, john? john: i actually want to follow up on the viewer question from last week. the viewer asking, how the president's lawyers are being paid, who is paying for their time representing the president? there is a story out today from thatashington pos" on front that takes a deep dive into it. some of the top lines from it --

as president trump faces his mounting legal bills from the impeachment trial, he is drawing on national party coffers, flush with donations from energized supporters. the story noting that the republican national committee is picking up the time for at least 2 of the president's attorneys from the trial, an arrangement that differs from the legal fund that was set up for president clinton when he's being impeached, only to see that found in 1999 fail to raise enough money to cover his millions of dollars in bills before he left office. the law firm of president trump's lead lawyer, j sekulow, and attorney dean raskin, has received millions of dollars from the rnc since november. the party, they note, will pay the duo for their work this month and likely into february, as the trial continues. further in the story, as we noted last week, allen -- with has said he will not accept payment for serving -- alan

dershowitz said he will not accept payment for serving on the president defense team. that two ofo note the president's attorneys, michael cohen poor and patrick philbin, do get taxpayer money because they serve as white house deputy attorneys, and therefore, they get their regular salary as deputy attorney in the president's and the executive office of the president, a salary somewhere between $170,000 and $180,000 a year. host: john, thank you so much. we appreciate that. we go to herndon, virginia, ma hadeva, republican line. caller: i just want to make sure this quid pro quo -- it is relating to foreign policy. you give them a billion dollars

so they can do actions against american interests? that is not the way it is supposed to be. if the president has done whatever he has done, that is the right thing to do. mean --not [indiscernible] host: we will go to huntersville, minnesota, mike on the independent line. caller: a lot of interesting people coming on this morning boy. i would like to say something first to the previous caller when he said that president trump has the back of the military. if that is the case, why is he saying that all they have is headaches, and making fun of it when he is in a press conference? that is disgusting. but anyway, i think what people should do is sit back, and take a deep breath and let this take its course. once it takes its course, i think everybody in congress and in the senate should have an

independent counsel go over them with a fine tooth comb just like they are doing to mr. biden. i think that would be only the fair thing for this country to do. cominghe u.s. house is in a few minutes away at 10:00 a.m. it will be the morning hour for general speeches, and noon for legislative work. day eight of the senate impeachment trial, president trump's legal team will continue their presentation on the third and final day. 15 hours and 33 minutes remain in their a lot of time but they don't plan to use it all. the trial resumes at 1:00 p.m. on c-span two other things we are covering specialclude the inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction testifying in the national security subcommittee in the house coming up this morning. you can find that online. we are streaming it at c-span.org. dixon, illinois, terry on the democrats line.

caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: yes. i hear a couple of calls come in about congress. about how they are starting impeachment, about subpoenas -- the constitution is pretty clear, the house has full power of impeachment. that means they can set the rules whichever way they want. .hey don't have to take a vote when they start an inquiry and , if thes go out president wants to obstruct and the senate g.o.p. wants to obstruct and cover up and not have a fair trial, i would just ask the american people -- we have seen the president in the last three years, he is very loose with the truth. are you going to believe him when he' dusk when he says he didn't say this, or are you going to believe mr. bolton and

his accusation that, yes, the president did a quid pro quo? plus, now it has been revealed that maybe the president was giving favors to dictators in china. wait a minute, i thought he was for the american people. you know, "make america great." why is he selling our country out to others and why is he black -- blackmailing ukraine for his adversary biden. we have seen this yesterday. that is exactly what his lead prosecutors came out -- hunter biden, obama, hunter biden, hunter biden -- you know? host: to maryland, good morning. caller: good morning. when i first heard donald trump talk about the unemployment the lowest in 40 years my mind went into a total spin. how in the world anybody would, -- with common sense can understand, where is all the

business that went overseas to china and the rest of the world -- i haven't heard anything about them coming back to the point that employment would drop so low in 40 years. i was baffled by how people could run without. one thing i do know the department of labor is a covenant member organization. and every time donald trump tells a lie, everyone around him wants to keep their jobs has to get out and support his lies knowing that their allies. this man came into power bragging about how he assaults women. it is beyond my understanding how anybody could trust what this man says, when all they have to do -- the gentleman who you are talking to, the other brother on c-span, asked him to go and check how many times donald trump's facts have been proven to be outright lies. host: john, all right.

the president is traveling to new jersey. tonight at 7:00 p.m. eastern. we will cover that live on c-span three. trump sends cabinet members and allies to campaign in iowa. the trump campaign says it will dispatch high-level government appointees to stump in iowa i had of monday's caucuses, setting up pitfalls for officials bound by ethics, restrictions on their politicking. quote "this goes beyond anything i have ever seen when it comes to the white house deploying its resources on the campaign trail" says an aide to then-senate majority leader harry reid. he added, it is so brazen and outrageous that there has to be accountability. we will hear from linda next on the republican line -- independent line. hi, linda. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my

call. mention or to respond to some of the callers who have been calling in. it is kind of different to me how we have gone all the way right isime to say wrong and wrong is right. followingn this impeachment from day one from the house when nancy pelosi ,alled for to look at it investigations or whatever. nobody is really looking at the facts of the case, because i am listening to the white house, and they say, there is nothing to see here, he did nothing

wrong. bidene biden and hunter did something wrong. ok. he shouldn't have had -- it was a conflict of interest, and i agree with the conflict of interest, he shouldn't have been on the board in another country while his dad was vice president. i get that. got president trump's children making money. they are working in the government. and they are making money off foreign deals. and nobody is saying nothing about that. so if it is so bad that hunter biden did this, and his father was vp, there that is the president! host: i will have to let you go, linda. the u.s. house is coming in