past 22 years to change the framers and the term high crimes and misdemeanors? it is not whether a crime was required. it was whether the crime clinton was charged with was a high crime. in his impeachment began it was whether a crime was be quiet -- required. >> and impeachment may not be a crime and a crime may not be in impeachable offense. scholars in our history, except for mr. dershowitz. today impeachment trial at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. online or listen on the free c-span radio app. >> this morning on "washington journal" the latest on the

senate impeachment trial with south dakota senator mike rounds. join the conversation all morning. washington journal is next. ♪ for the first time in the impeachment trial of donald trump we heard from senators. more of that today. it is thursday, january 30, 2020. up to eight more hours today of questioning as the senate resumes the trial at 1:00 p.m. eastern. we will have that live on c-span2. we would love to hear you from you on your thoughts. (202)for democrats

748-8000, republicans (202) 748-8001 and all others, (202) 748-8002. we welcome your text at (202) 748-8003, tell us your name and where you are texting from. also facebook.com/c-span. in a change of direction and some of the arguments in the question and answer phase post"day, the "washington with a picture of alan dershowitz. trump team advances blanket defense against impeachment. president trump's legal team offered a start doing -- startling defense. arguing presidents could do nearly anything so long as they believe reelection is in the public interest. the assertion from alan dershowitz, one of the attorneys representing the president, seem to take gop senators by surprise. republican lawmakers were sounding increasingly confident

by defeating a vote expected friday over calling new witnesses in the trial. an issue that has consumed the senate the past several days. i spent a full day yesterday, eight hours with some of the details and numbers. the senate of impeachment trial of donald trump. day one of question and answer phase. the senate convened at the court of impeachment at 1:13 p.m. at 11:05 p.m. senators rise to to ask their question. the handover a card that gets taken up to the chief justice, john roberts. here is what that card looks like. they have to fill out their name and who is asking the question. they have to direct their question to either the council for the president or the house manager. there is space for them to ask that specific answer -- question.

it is right on the senate by chief justice john roberts. the first question of the day went to susan collins. lisa murkowski, and mitt romney where the headline in the hill newspaper noting that first question. it asked about the president and the motives when it came to his actions. that question said if the president had more than one motive for election conduct, such as the pursuit of political advantage, rooting out corruption, and the promotion of l interest, how should the senate look at article one? that was how the day kicked off on the senate floor. questionsns followed pbs lisa de chardin of

news. she said the questions were friendly, helping the lawyers of their particular parties. whether it was the impeachment managers or the president's lawyers. rather the others were tough to the opposing party. seemed to be genuine, neutral questions seeking information and thought. -- lisa desjardins pointing out who ask the most questions. ted cruz submitted seven for the record yesterday. martha mcsally, jerry durand, six each. lisa murkowski with five along with senators crapo and brown. that the topics of the questions were pretty wide-ranging. the biggest topic was about witnesses.

19 of the questions submitted for senators yesterday had to do with witnesses. 14 had to do with the motive either of the president or the house in its impeachment. 13 of the questions had to do with standards for impeachment. house process accounted for 13 of the questions. joe biden or the bidens came up four times. the president's case came up four times. ukraine came up four times and so on down the line. watchingow as you are today's impeachment proceedings and the questions. craig caplan, our c-span capitol hill producer on twitter has been tweeting out every question as against ask -- as it gets asked. here he was at the very last question by the indiana senators , todd young and mike braun. their question to the house managers and presidents counsel had to do with house witnesses. that is how they ended yesterday

and they will begin today at 1:00 p.m. eastern. host: we will play the response from the presidents counsel to that first question. let's get to your calls. we will go to memphis and hear from larry on the democrats line. caller: good morning. i served and defended this country. i didn't do it so president could come on tv and invite foreign governments into our election. they were going to do that, they are just putting on the show. the vote will hold him responsible during elections, have him a night -- have a nice day. host: to new jersey, rich on the republican line. i guessgood morning, the new york times story the other morning about john bolton is now debunked.

the "new york times" story the other day about john boarding is probably debunked so there will be no witnesses called. from radiourface free europe in an interview with john bolton at the end of august. i hope you guys play that once or twice this morning so your democrat callers. host: what part of that would debunk the excerpts they published? there: john bolton said was nothing wrong with the phone call at the time. it was a perfect call just like the president said. you said that was done by radio free europe? caller: all the big sites have it. i called the senators and hope they play it today on the floor.

thanks for pointing that out to us. john bolton's upcoming book, this is the headline in "the washington times. " national security council told john bullet he could not publish his book manuscript now sought by democrats unless he deleted top-secret material. nsc senior director told mr. bolton's lawyer in a lawyer obtained by the washington times that the manuscript appears to contain significant amounts of classified information. it also appears that some of this classified information is top-secret level. she wrote on january 23 the manuscript may not be published or otherwise disclosed without the deletion of this classified information. thee days later writes "washington times" parts of the nu script were leaked to the "new york times." mr. bolton submitted the manuscript on december 30th as

required for a prepublication review. lines on the independent -- ken is on the independent line. caller: i'm calling regarding the impeachment. i was disappointed with the republicans. i have been watching pretty i watched when the house interviewed and asked questions. adam schiff had a lot of witnesses. the republicans could not even have one. adam schiff said don't answer that. now he wants witnesses? tim is next on the

democrats line in florida. caller: good morning. is to say i'm calling the main question to me seems to a king or have democratic democracy? authord to have a great to lead a panel discussion on this issues. he wrote a book "american fundamentalism." , john mcardle mentioned that first question coming from senators murkowski, collins, ann romney -- and romney. >> all elected officials to some how theire in mind conduct, how their decisions will affect the next election. there is always some personal interest in the electoral

outcome of policy decisions. of representative democracy. if you have a part motive for your personal or electoral game, that will somehow become an offense? it is totally unworkable. it can't be the basis for removing president from office. once you are into any mixed motive situation, it is established that there is a ,egitimate public interest asking a question about something. the minute a case fails and it fails on their own terms. show noognize they legitimate public interest. they failed to make that case. the 2016 election interference in the breeze must situation --

burisma situation raise public interest. it is something that is worth looking at. it has never been investigated. lots of their own witnesses from the state department says that there appears to be a conflict of interest. it is at least worth us raising a question about it. there is that public interest. that means the case absolutely failed. we are atwitter c-span.com/wj. the trump defense team's only defense as president trump could do anything he thinks is good for the country. even judge judy would not accept that theory. they said for months republicans in exchange for investigations into biden. republicans now say it doesn't matter if there was a quid pro quo with ukraine. but would you say if the rumors became true that several democrats are planning to vote

with republicans to acquit the president? -- thisn south carolina is hank on the republican line. caller: thanks for taking the call. i have a couple of questions. my number one question would be what was hunter biden doing on air force to to begin with? he didn't tell his dad coming back on an eight or nine hour trip? host: the trip he took to china? caller: the trip to ukraine. host: what else? some of the senators that are asking questions, i remember distinctly senator and he asked a question went into all the stuff that , did this and did that. he put it in question form.

votegoing to sit there and whether to impeach him or not? he might end up running against trump? if he impeach trump he won't have to worry about it. , that just doesn't seem right to me that they could sit there and judge a person they will be running against. is foure iowa caucus days away. morning, thank you for taking my call. feel that we need to have witnesses. surveys people with the they said 70% wanted witnesses. i think american people have spoken. we need this. is it is not only

the white house giving out documents on this. my understanding is we cannot even find out how much money the white house spent last year. we should be able to know that. we are not going to find that out until after the elections. the republicans are not doing enough to try to keep this president in check. thank you for taking my call. this is from the "new york trump'sesident impeachment defense team expects a friday cliffhanger when senators vote on whether to call witnesses. if they find four republicans to vote for witnesses the trial could stretch until march. if they fail he would likely be acquitted.

mark meadows told the new york post he doesn't believe there will be clarity until friday of this week. mike is onw jersey, the independent line. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i think both parties did in excellent job in the rehearsed scripts. seems like there was a lot of rehearsal in asking their own there is the rehearsed script for what they wanted to say. thank you. host: todd in south carolina, republican line. everything the democratic side is saying, how about hillary with her emails?

open mic?obama on there is a couple right there. adam schiff protecting the , nobody-- whistleblower knows who he is, how could he be afraid for his life? asking outside the whole burisma thing. how about the democrats when the steele dossier. where did that information come from? host: doug is next on the democrat line in florida. caller: good morning, america. there were several things i called about. the vice tell america

president has zero power, he has do government functions the president don't want to. that is it. the trial is plain and simple. mick mulvaney said it clear, we did it. it was quid pro quo. i don't know why c-span doesn't put that on every hour. complainingping and because they already admitted it. have a good day. that video available on our website, c-span.org/impeachment. all of the video related to the impeachment you will find it there. many senators on the south lawn of the white house, the usmca deal signed.

trump signs usmca deal pack, shuts dems out of kudos. a raretrump celebrated bipartisan achievement wednesday when he signed into law a revamped trade deal with mexico and canada surrounded by business leaders wearing hard hats. trump portrayed the u.s.-mexico-canada trade agreement as a colossal victory for farmers, manufacturers, and other workers. trump gave a shout out to more than two dozen republican lawmakers he credited with helping push the deal through congress. celebration the were congressional democrats who put their own stamp on the agreement and whose support was pivotal in helping secure approval. nancy pelosi's office said no democrats were invited to the ceremony. we hear from jim next in albuquerque. caller: morning. could you hear me? host: yes, we can. caller: i want to say i watched

last night, commented on the good job you did last night and your show. picked up that i was unclear on before was towards the end. he was explaining what the ukrainians were doing in the up soment to set stronger laws. i think basically that is what the president was looking for. i think that is what he was talking about from the beginning. people, maybe some obama holdovers around him that leaked some things are went to the press. story.the political

the ukrainians picked it up. it became a game of telephone where things were blown out of , misunderstood, mischaracterized. that is pretty much what got us here to this situation. it was a big situation that was blown up and blown out of proportion. that this of a shame has happened. we could do toat alleviate them in the future. need to prevail. i guess i would like to see more about it. about whend a report it was released, the day after

the ukrainian parliament actually pass that. they made that announcement. i think that needs to be touched on a little more. them to do it. it could've been more of a coincidence than anything. ukraineu brought up the parliament. the "washington post" is writing about ukraine's president still seeking the meeting with president trump. remainst zelenskiy focused on getting a white house meeting. that story is on washingtonpost.com. placeey vote will take sometime perhaps tomorrow after the debate over whether the senate will hear more witnesses in the impeachment trial.

can democrats get four republicans to join them to get 51 votes they would need in order to call more witnesses? to see more documents? watched inng closely that process. along with susan collins as well. others who are being watched .ould join them they would need lisa murkowski, lamar alexander, pat toomey, cory gardner. we got a bit more clarity on some of those folks yesterday and it was clarity that wasn't particularly great news for democrats. headlinethe from colorado politics. gartner said he doesn't want to hear from more witnesses. a cnn reporter looking at lamar alexander who we talked about a couple times, he continues to be the gop wildcard. he is not showing his preference

one way or the other. sources who attended yesterday's conference meeting said he did not speak about his views on witnesses and is not tipping his hand as he reviews past material. toomey of is pat pennsylvania. this is from the "philadelphia ," to me sends the strongest signal yet that he will not support calling witnesses. says he is very skeptical. that if witnesses were called, it is only fair that both parties get to call them. he went hard after hunter biden. he said his job at burisma offers another explanation for why trump withheld aid. we mentioned lisa murkowski as well. the story from "the hill" newspaper noting that lisa murkowski had a sit down with

mcconnell, he had a meeting with his swing voters. trying to block the ability for democrats to call additional witnesses. the hill new story noting lisa murkowski not tipping her hand after that meeting with mitch mcconnell. republicans are feeling bullish. the headline from the examiner. senate republicans see a path to ending the trial this week. if they are able to block witnesses and additional documents, they could move to a vote on whether or not to acquit the president. that could take place as soonest tomorrow, or it could take place after several days of deliberation. senators could go behind closed doors to have those deliberations before a final vote on acquittal. several democrats being watched on whether they will join republicans in acquitting the president. we mentioned yesterday, joe mansion, one of those key democrats being watched. one of our story to talk about is what happens if democrats get

to eight 50-50 type. some questions about whether john roberts could or would break that tie. "politico" story saying it would fall to the chief justice if the deadlock occurs. they look at some of the history of this going back to the bill clinton impeachment and johnson impeachment. history gives a muddled guide to the road ahead if there is a 50-50 tie. the chief justice left matters to the senate and did not break any ties. during the impeachment of president andrew johnson the chief justice did break the tie with great controversy, doing so twice. that would only come up if it comes to a 50-50 type. -- tie. and: a lot of key decisions votes ahead. send us a text with your thoughts. (202) 748-8003.

this one from charles in san francisco saying professor dershowitz jumped the shark yesterday. his argument was all that turned corruption into legitimate policy. he's asking about a question posed to alan dershowitz, who was responding to a question from senator ted cruz of texas that if it mattered if there was a quid pro quo? let's listen. mr. dershowitz: every public official i know believes his election as the public interest. mostly, you are right. your election is in the public interest. if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public therest, that cannot be kind of quid pro quo that result in impeachment. i quoted president lincoln. when president lincoln told general sherman to let the troops go to indiana so that

they can vote for the republican party -- let's assume the president was running at that point. risk the lives of many soldiers or be left without their company. would that be an unlawful quid pro quo? believes it is in the national interest and he believes his own election was essential to victory in the civil war. that isesident believes why it is so dangerous, to try and psychoanalyze a president. to get into the intricacies of the human mind. everybody has mixed motives. for there to be a constitutional impeachment based on mixed motives would permit almost any president to be impeached. how many presidents have made foreign policy decisions after checking with political advisors and pollsters?

if you are acting in the national interest, what do you need pollsters or political advisors? balance what is in the public interest with what is in your party's electoral interest in your own electoral interest, it is impossible to discern how much weight is given. that was alan dershowitz's response to ted cruz's question. here is house manager adam schiff and his response. >> there are two arguments professor dershowitz makes. one of these is an odd argument, it is highly unusual to have a discussion and trial about defendants state of mind. in every courtroom in america, in every criminal case or almost every criminal case except a small sliver there are strict

liabilities of the intent and state of mind. it is always an issue. this is nothing novel. you don't require a mind reader. and iry criminal case would assume every impeachment case yes, you have to show he was operating from a corrupt motive. from a corrupt motive and we have. we will hear next from sofia in the bronx. caller: good morning, bill. host: good morning. they need to bring botham and the other four witnesses. we know he will be acquitted. it is very important for us, the voters, because we don't know what they are going to say. ,nother thing, three months ago president trump said i started my campaign three months early. this was three months ago, so that they will not impeach me.

i want to say this. what he is doing is delay, attack, distract, deny. deny everything from what he said to what he has done? hope mitt romney -- schiff and the ast of them, they have brilliant strategy. he is going to delay, delay. thank you, sir. thank you for listening. host: floyd is next in ohio. democrat line. floyd, you there? caller: yes. how are you doing?

host: fine. caller: i just want to talk about the president. i don't dislike the president. i just don't like some of the things he is doing. you can't hide everything you do. this, youlet him do can only hide so far. thet it was my taxes are in audit. nobody said anything about that. i don't blame him. i blame republicans -- the republican party. and all mitch mcconnell of the rest of those guys are just letting him run roughshod. they wouldn't let no other president run roughshod. fair, fair -- if it's it's fair. if it's not, it's not. what is their job? anythingere and not do

the rest of the day? they get paid all of that money and they don't do anything. i have not seen them pass bills. where is the bill for infrastructure? what are these guys doing? i just don't understand. they are going to split the country in 50 states. -- 255% of the people thees to somebody to democrats, independents and any other republican that wants to go over there. they won't stop talking like they know what he is and what he's doing. if they know what he is, why do they let him do it? clinton, hillary clinton, barack obama, even george w. they wouldn't allow this stuff to go on. are you kidding me, mr. graham? just55 years old and i am

tired of seeing the charade. where have you ever been in any courtroom that you did not have witnesses? that's it right there. you can just stop. he knows what's going on. you can't be that stupid. come on. they don't have nothing to do with that phone call from the president. host: we will go to decatur, georgia and hear from regina on the independent line. caller: hi, good morning. host: good morning. caller: i just want to speak to the abuse of power. host: ok. caller: and the ousting of the ambassador, re-give ottovich -- marie yovanovitch. i am a 53-year-old african-american woman and i have been fired or pushed out

when i was in my early 20's. ceo.never by the it could have been gossip, rumors, because you have jealousy in the workplace. but that is my colleagues or a rogue manager. but the ceo does not get involved in that. so, president trump had the authority to fire the ambassador. but, he made a choice to abuse out rudy, lev, harm her.and possibly president trump, the average

fortune 100 ceos, his responsibilities are much greater than theirs. they don't have time to lower their office into the gutter and to harm a worker. and, everybody on these phones, they sign look -- sound like they are either retired or average, everyday workers. we know, if we have been living long enough and working long has neverceo threatened our life. host: a couple of other stories we are following today, this is from the daily caller with the headline, americans evacuate china as the coronavirus continues to spread. passengersrrying 201 landed on wednesday morning at a military base in california after stopping for health checks in anchorage, alaska. health officials screened for the coronavirus in china. the cdc screened passengers

again at a stop in alaska. all passengers passed their screenings upon landing at march air reserve base in southern california. we will continue to have t health checks. on another health-related story, a tweet from joe in the washington post says one of their health and science reporters, and you are probably seeing this on lead local stories, u.s. life expectancy takes up a bit but don't celebrate. lost decade by that metric. to pennsylvania, good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. thank you for taking my call. host: what a lot of people are this is the foundation of our country.

the people are forgetting, forget about being a democrat or a republican. forget about all of these t news places. i don't have a tv. i listen to c-span every day on the radio and in pr and i read papers. and i read papers. it saddens me to listen to us. the very people who are there, if i go to court and i raise my right hand and i law, they are not -- lie, they are not going to jail. -- then i go to jail. they raise their right hands in their names in the books, and with new listen, it's just sad. -- when you listen, it's just sad.

you have witnesses and if you don't respond to anything that the court says, they will come and get you. host: are you listening to most of the trial most days, either npr?or on c-span radio or caller: i listen everyday. i'm retired. i work in my house and do things. i don't have a 10 belgian -- i aaven't had i in my house since 2016. ont: we regret you are not c-span but we thank you for listening on c-span radio. guest: on the question of whether to call witnesses in the trial, we are expecting a debate on that to take place tomorrow. here is a picture from capitol hill, yesterday, getting taken

by the hill newspaper, one of the hometown newspapers here on capitol hill, one of the protests taking place on capitol hill, protesters calling for additional witnesses. this is just an example of one of the tweets by democratic groups. calling moveon members to flood the call lines, calling senators to demand for additional witnesses. taken to the airwaves as well. we are seeing television commercials on this topic. for the rulelicans of law. an anti-trump republican group airing ads in six key states, the home states of senator lisa murkowski, mitt romney, lamar , andnder, cory gardner martha mcsally of arizona.

here is an example of one of their ads running in those states. [video clip] >> this is ambassador john bolton, he was national security advisor to president trump. he said president trump told him military aid was being withheld from ukraine until they announce investigations against the bidens. john bolton is willing to do his duty to tell the truth. our senate republicans willing to do their duty to listen? senate republicans willing to do their duty to listen? guest: pushback from pro-trump groups, including the club for growth, their new ad is running late this week. it is running from january 30 to february 1, specifically in utah and specifically targeting mitt romney, who has been the republican most vocal for additional witnesses.

this is what the club for growth put out this week. [video clip] >> there is mitt romney, threatening to vote with democrats again. they trashed president trump on the witness stand. if mitt wants the truth, what about the fight? it was joe biden who strong-armed ukraine into firing its top prosecutor during a corruption investigation into the company paying hunter biden $50,000 a month. can mitt handled the truth? put hunter biden on the stand. the house is coming in at 9:00 eastern. capital producer craig kaplan tweeting at the house will vote today to limit military action against iran by blocking federal funding for possible future war with iran and appealing the 2002 authorization for the use of military force for iraq.

live coverage at 9:00 eastern on c-span. back at 1:00 eastern on c-span two. two tim in florida on the republican line. caller: hi. host: good morning. caller: i hope you will give me a few minutes because i have been watching this from the get-go go. number one, you know, adam schiff wants to get up and talk about how trump is trying to get foreign influence into the 2020 election. but, it seems like him and the democrats and even the ones that call in seem to forget that the dnc and hillary clinton paid christopher steele to get the 2016on to use in election. ok. that's one thing. yesterdayon was asked or last night of why adam schiff has not released the transcript from the interviews or the deposition that they gave to the

cig. cig -- ns everyone else's testimony has been reviewed and he never answered that question. another point is this. assuming people don't understand about budgeting, about budgets, the congress passes a budget, it is a full, one year budget. they authorize different things, whether it is military, foreign aid, whatever. ok? now, whenever that budget is passed, they have until the end of the year, the fiscal year, which is the end of september 30, to release those funds. there is never a date that is put on any of those funds or when they are released. they gave a political opinion. you go back to the obama administration if you want to go back, they said the obama administration violated the law

and broke the law seven times. nobody jumped up and wanted to say we need to impeach him because he is violating the law. irene, he traded hostages, people that we had for the taliban. supposedly, the federal government, we are not supposed to negotiate -- they are not supposed to negotiate with terrorists. host: do you think that is the kind of thing that everybody in the federal government knows about, as long as it is spent before the end of the fiscal year, you may get lashed with a wet noodle but it really doesn't have any legal impact. is that your point on that? caller: to a certain point, yes. you have to understand something about budgets. in theto work construction industry. ok?

, chemicalpower plants refineries, they have capital are allowedt they and budgeted for the year. if they do not use all that that it comesime up for the next fiscal year for them to decide their budget, then their budget is cut by how much money is left. the federal government, this is where a lot of life comes in in the federal government. i blame both of them. the republicans and the democrats. they are going to spend that money. they know that if they don't, the different departments, if they do not spend that money, the budget will be cut by that. host: i appreciate you weighing in with your experience. we go to michael in kansas, independent line. that's what he was supposed to do.

host: michael, turn down your volume and listen to the phone. go caller: ahead with your comment. caller:good morning -- host: go ahead with your comment. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. host: go ahead with your comment. caller: ok. let me start with this. one is also blind who has eyes but refuses to see. my comment is to all of the trump supporters. i wish they would stop spewing out misinformation. everything that they legally should do. to honorump refused and refused to let any cabinet member talked to the house of representatives.

in addition to that, people have to remember, this is what he said verbally. i understand that they would support him even if he killed someone on fifth avenue. o support that people -- evil, it is hard to get people to look at that stuff realistically. will hear from kathleen on the republican line. caller: good morning, washington journal. i watch every morning because i have a radio show in los angeles. i have to know what's going on. host: what station, what station are you on and what time are you on? .aller: i am on krla i just did an interview with the epic times. it is on the epic times california insider. my name is kathleen wells, i am

a black american woman. theinterview is called challenges facing black america. i hear all of these black americans calling in and defending trump. i don't know why democrats have any credibility to black americans whatsoever. democrats have lied to black america for six decades. in,k americans who call complaining about trump, their anger, their frustration is displaced. they should be angry with the democratic party. if they knew the constitution, and the slaughterhouse case, there were no -- they would know that there is no way these people should be above black americans. black people are facing zero by 2053.alth the black people calling into are angry withp

trump. host: i think you're lumping everybody in but we appreciate your comment. >> let me be clear about the whistleblower. i don't know who the whistleblower is. i have not met them or comedic aided with them in any way. did notittee staff write the complaint or coach the whistleblower at what to put in the complaint. the committee staff did not see the complaint before it was submitted to the inspector general. the committee, including its staff did not receive the complaints until the night directing national intelligence. we had an open hearing on september 26. more than three weeks after the legal deadline by which the committee should have received the complaint. in short, the conspiracy theory, which i think was outlined earlier that the whistleblower

hatched an impeachment inquiry is a complete and total fiction. i think this was confirmed by the remarkable accuracy of the whistleblower complaint, which has been corroborated by the evidence we subsequently gathered. i will not go into anything that could reveal or lead to the revelation of the whistleblower. but i can tell you, because my staff's names have been brought into the proceeding, that my staff acted at all times with the most complete professionalism. i am very protective of my staff, as i know you are. and i am grateful that we have , hard-working people working around-the-clock to protect this country and have served our committee so well. it grieves me to see them smeared and some of them mentioned here today have concerns about their safety and they are our online threats to members of my staff. as a result of some of the

smears that have been launched against them. i can tell you there is no one who can understand the plight of yovanovitch more than some of the people in my staff who have been treated to the same kinds of smears and have concerns for their own safety. they act with the almost propriety and integrity. your senate intelligence committee and your chairman and vice chairman can tell you and encourage whistleblowers to come to the committee. so do we. and when they do, we try to figure out is there complaint within the scope and jurisdiction of the intelligence committee. if it is, we suggest they get a lawyer. the whistleblower did exactly what they should. host: adam schiff responding to one of the questions on the senate floor, yesterday. joining us is john mcardle who has more about the whistleblower. guest: an interesting story. when thethe floor

question and answer period resumes, here is how politico puts it. chief justice john roberts has comedic aided to senators that he will not read aloud the alleged ukraine whistleblowers name or relay questions that might out the official, a move that effectively blocks senator rand paul from asking a question. fight, paul-scenes has composed a question that violates robert's edict. it is a vintage rand paul effort that could come to a head on thursday. a little bit more reporting on that front, he writes that ball control because he receives the questions on cards from the senators and reads the questions allowed in the senate chamber. paul who would be naming the whistleblower, it would be chief justice john

roberts. chuck schumer goes on to tweet after 10:00, senator paul may try to force the issue of reading the name of the whistleblower during the question period on the floor on thursday. watch for that today. one tweet from senator jeff berkley, the democrat from oregon, on the whistleblower to his colleagues. he does not name rand paul but he is talking about this story about the whistleblower and naming the whistleblower. please don't do this, do not dox the government whistleblower. something to watch for today. host: we will go back to calls and hear from mary next on the democrats line in las vegas. caller: good morning. this whistleblower thing is all a diversion. everything that came out in the complaint was proven by the hearing with jovanovich. yovanovitch.

these people have spent decades trying to protect their country. if the call was so perfect and everything trump does is so perfect, why is there such a bring people who were in on the call as witnesses and to produce witnesses? producenows what he can and cannot produce. he knows a lot more than trump. the people democrats want to call are republicans. it is not like they are democrats. trump, he is not honest about anything. he has told over 16,000 lies. a talk about biden's son making money. goingbout his daughter, and getting trademarks in china in the middle of a trade war. getting her shoes made over there. waivers for eric to hire illegals to work on the winery. you have trump with his

a dealses in turkey and going on with putin. putin is consolidating his government and trump is emulating him. what this is about, dershowitz typeguing about a unitary of giving trump all power. that is a dictatorship. host: mary mentioned in her comments, he ivanka trump. there is a story about her in the washington post. on friday, president trump is expected to attend a white house summit, organized by ivanka on human trafficking. an issue he frequently invokes as a top priority. mostof the country's prominent antitrafficking organizations and advocates will not be there. they have decided to boycott the event. you can read more about that on washington post.com. republicanto the line with k in alaska, next.

everybody says biden withheld eight. he did not have the power to withhold aid. he was the vice president. there is a big difference between president and vice president. that is one thing. giuliani'sng is rudy son works in the white house. what were his special qualifications? are they going to investigate that? wife wanted 42,000 dollars a month for spousal support. where is that money coming from? patrick philbin responded to a question about if president trump ever mentioned ukraine former viceefore president joe biden entered the race. [video clip] >> i think it is important to by what's inwer the record. what's in the record is

determined by the house of representatives and what they thought. with their proceedings, they are the ones who ran and they are the ones who called the witnesses. part of the question refers to conversations between president trump other cabinet members. it is -- there is not something in the record on that. i cannot point to something in the record that shows president trump at an earlier time mentioning specifically something related to joe or hunter biden. it is in the record that he ukraine's president twice about corruption in ukraine. both in june of 2017 and in september of 2017. there are -- there is other information, publicly available and in the records that i think is important for understanding the timeline and understanding wast was that the -- why it that the information regarding

biden came up when it did. one important piece of information to bear in mind is the ukraine president was the first person that joe biden to have the to prosecutor fired. as long as the president was still in charge in ukraine, he was the person that joe biden had spoken to to get the prosecutor fired when he was looking into, according to public reports, looking into burisma. as long as he was the president thekraine, questioning utility of raising an incident in which he was the one who was taking direction from vice president biden to fire the prosecutors, when you have an election in april of 2019 and you have a new president, president zelenskiy, who has run on an anticorruption platform and there is a question, is he really going to change things, is there going to be something new in the ukraine, it opens up an opportunity to start looking

at anticorruption issues and raising questions. with we have an hour left you on washington journal. the house is coming in at 9:00 eastern. we welcome your calls and comments. 202-748-8000 free democrats, -- for democrats, 202-748-8001 for republicans. joining us from capitol hill this morning, sen. rounds:, did you get your questions answered yesterday? >> one of my questions was in the first section that was asked. i did have the opportunity to participate in that respect, and i was there for the entire time. questionsgot 93 asked, both republicans and democrats. it was a reasonable approach to take to ask both sides to clarify their positions are there was some give and take back and forth, but this was not

the kind of a case in which people are changing their minds. i think the real questions for most of us right now is, will there be enough votes for the democrats to continue with additional witnesses, or at least attempt to have witnesses for an extended period of time. it is time to basically tell the house that you needed to do your homework first, you needed to put this together, you needed to have those in place and then bring the record to the senate. i think that is the base of what is going on right now and the next step that has to be taken is to decide whether or not we are ready to call in question on the actual verdict itself, or if we will extend this over weeks or months. host: what is your sense of the republican caucus, whether you will be able to block a vote for witnesses? i don't think it is

as much blocking witnesses as we have got to make a decision based on the facts we have laid articles,e determining whether they are valid, whether they have been presented to whether it would require removal of the president from office. member to asking any publicly disclose their position . our discussions, which are among republicans just like the democrats, we have dinners where we can sit down and visit. i think most folks understand that it could be very close and that there is a number of people who have said i would really like to know more, and i think the argument or the discussion that goes on is, would it change your position? is it something that needs to be laid out that has additional information in the decision-making process? mr. bolton comes to mind. i would like to read his book. i have respect for mr. bolton. but what mr. bolton is offering is not something which changes my mind based upon whether he

says he had a conversation or he didn't have a conversation with the president. host: you mentioned a moment ago that yesterday's question and answer session clarify things on both sides. what couple of points for you further clarified where you will fall eventually on the question of impeachment? they had questions that prepared on both sides that allowed them to drive home their point of view. for example, why would the president have an interest in ukraine and in the issues surrounding the corruption that has been occurring in that country? what was the point? why was he asking for additional information? or in the case of, at what point did he actually asked for information about other countries who were providing support, how much support, and were we being asked to be unfairly burdened with additional support, where other

countries were not helping ukraine in a similar manner. those of the types of questions that i think they had a chance to refine in terms of the timelines involved in the president asking those questions. on the democrat side, they wanted to try to hone in on obstruction and what they've said was obstruction. both sides try to point to things that they felt important to bring up to the american public. host: in the withholding of aid and the ousting of the ambassador -- of ambassador jovanovich, do you think the president, or the administration did anything wrong in terms of ukraine? rounds: in all of the cases we have seen so far, in my opinion, the answer is no. did -- is any administration perfect? there is always the chance to look in hindsight to say i wish that would have been done

differently, and i think most reasonable people would agree that there is probably a better way to do some of these things. but with regard to the sit pacific -- to the specific questions we have had to look at, if you think abuse of power by itself is a reason to remove a president from office, we are saying no. in this particular case the abuse of power issue is not the issue and the framers made it very clear that there were specific issues that a president could be removed for. abuse of power is the argument that mr. dershowitz and others are making, and that is not an issue that we should make, and i happen to agree with him on that one. the dems on the other side, on article two, they are suggesting obstruction of justice. they are also saying that the president tried to delay our decision, saying that he was going to take us to court. those are legal remedies that the president does have. the house said they would cut to

the chase and dump it in the senate's lap, what we are not going to take time to work through due process which the president truly believes he has. would it have taken time? yes, it would have. but now they want the senate to have that same burden and to go through that same process. we think that should have been up to the house to do before they brought it in. host: your republican colleagues and others have called for the american people to have the final say in the election. the underlying issue to a lot of this is the interference of russia and elections and allegations of ukrainian interference into u.s. elections. how concerned are you, or are you concerned about the purity of the 2020 election? sen. rounds: i serve as the chairman of the cyber subcommittee for the armed services committee in the senate. i can tell you in february of 2017, the department of defense laid out very clearly the russian attempts to interfere with our election process. but it is not what some people think.

they attempted to look in and to see whether or not they could get into certain election platforms around the country. they were not successful in doing that. what they were successful in doing was influencing the election process by providing lots of misinformation. they did it on both sides. they tried to foment anger and animosity among republicans. they were successful in doing that. in that respect, they interfered in the election process. whether or not there were other people trying to do it at the same time, good question. i think that is part of the discussion that has been laid out here. with regard to the russians, they definitely were doing it. since that time, we have sent a pretty powerful message. we have changed our public policy with regard to what we allow our cyber offensive folks to be able to do to stop them from getting in. 2018 election was a good example where we were successful in sending a very powerful message to those same groups that did

interfere in 2016. 2020, we absolutely have to be on guard. there are other people out there watching carefully to see whether or not the -- what the russians did in 2016 could be duplicated in 2020. host: senator mike rounds, we appreciate your perspective in joining us this money. senator rounds mentioned he is a member of the armed services committee, that meeting -- that committee meeting this morning. c-span3. be on the house is coming in at 9:00. that will be on c-span in the senate at 1:00 eastern, with the impeachment trial at one a clock p.m. eastern. an update next from john mcardle. we have been responding to viewer questions throughout the process. i want to point to one from roger in north carolina this morning. via text, asking how many hours of questions are left today on the senate floor. to roger and all our viewers,

there is another eight hours today. the senators spent eight hours -- there are just a few breaks. that is why it went on longer than eight hours. if you went from the gavel into gavel out. the official time left, they have another eight hours. they answered 93 questions in that eight hours. withn's digital producer this breakdown -- the white house counsel pat philbin answered 28 times yesterday. adam schiff answered at least 18 times over the course of the day yesterday. ted cruz had the most questions, with a half-dozen peer lisa , closely watched from alaska, who could be a vote on key witnesses, was involved in about five different questions. it gets underway again today, starting at 1:00 p.m.. we talked about this week other news that has to do with one of

those folks president trump has appointed to his defense team, one of the house members who spent a lot of time during the house impeachment process defending the president, congressman doug collins of georgia. he announced officially yesterday that he was joining the senate race to fill the final two years of the term of johnny isakson, who stepped down back in december. senator isaacson replaced georgia with kelly leffler. special election in november to see who will take over the two-year term, republicans very concerned about two high-profile republicans getting involved in a special election, whether it could tip the race in favor of democrats. emigrants now seem to have gotten a key candidate in that race, one they were hoping for, rafael warnock, pastor of the same church in georgia officially entering the senate race. that report from the atlanta journal-constitution. that is the headline there if

you want to read more about. national republican senatorial committee came out strongly in favor of senator leffler, the nrc, as it is known as, is the campaign arm of senate republicans, his jet -- it's job defending republicans -- it defending incumbents and putting democratic seats in play. aug collins saying it is shortsighted decision. it is putting others in georgia in play. responsecollins with a to that statement on twitter yesterday. his response saying don't be ridiculous, calling the statement from the nrc fake news coming from the head of the washington-based group whose bylaws require it to support all incumbents, even the unelected one spirit as we noted yesterday, president expected to be a key player in this special election, both doug collins and kelly leffler pointing to their

support, defending the president in the senate. kelly leffler was mentioned by president trump yesterday at the signing ceremony for the u.s. the-- the usmca, u.s.-mexico canada agreement. kelly leffler was quick to point that out on twitter after it happened, saying thanks for the shout out to the president, .esponding host: it will be one of the interesting races to watch in 2020 p that's get back to calls and hear from eleanor, peoria, illinois, democrats line. hi, my name is michelle. i have a couple of statements to make. president's attorneys to be considerably despicable, to be quite honest. to subvert the constitution like the -- it is too

inexpensive a proposition. to the republican party, you are supposed to be american first. i repeat -- american first. your legislate -- your legacy will live on as republican first or those are my statements. host: we go to oregon next. linda is on the republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. up of the morning to you, too. host: top of the morning to you, too. you're up early on the west coast. go ahead. caller: we have been watching this program since it started, and i don't know, we just feel that the republicans are not because if trump's

attorneys would get their heads out of the sand and see really what is going on, trump is controlling everything, even them. this is crazy. why don't we have witnesses? we want to see witnesses. i want to know if trump is lying. i want to know if he's being honest. i want to know what is wrong with the attorneys. they already know what is going on. host: on twitter we are at c-span wj. a few tweets -- host: democratic centered is forced to vote, requiring robert to weigh in on witnesses. also from robert, the framers are rolling in their grave while sending ouija board messages to all americans to resist and revolt against this trump corruption. republican line is next. debbie, good morning, on our

republican line. mount pleasant, texas. say firstwas going to off, anybody accused of any type of crime or whatever in this country is presumed innocent first. you are not guilty just because somebody says so. and the way that this whole thing started off in the media, with democrats, the no-trump are's, it has been, he is guilty already. i have watched this since the very beginning when it was in the house and everything. why they't understand will not let the witness come forward because whoever he is, he is not an actual witness. host: you are talking about the whistleblower? caller: yes. host: ok. caller: he is not really a

whistleblower, and i do not believe that adam schiff does not know who he is. when they were doing this in the house and his name was being brought up or almost brought up, i think it was at one time. as a matter of fact, i know it was. with objections and pounding the gavel and all that. if he did not know who he was, how could he object so strongly to a certain name? i mean, and then he stood there yesterday in the hall of congress and said he has no idea who it was the echo me a break. host: to new york city. we hear from ann on our democrats line. lostr: i feel like we have our democracy. trump is a dictator and the republican senators are his cult. when mike rounds says that the house did not do their job, to me that is like the waitress that says that is not my table, you have to get the catch up

from your waitress. spring, texas, is next. republican line. cynthia, good morning. caller: good morning, bill. would you please share the video of john bolton talking about the phone call shortly after the phone call was placed? president trump tweeted that out yesterday. would you share it with the people, please? host: the president tweeted that yesterday? retweeted that yesterday? caller: yes, sir. and it is john bolton specifically talking about the phone call. "the the front page of washington times" this morning, trump team warns against calling bolton as a witness, calling former national security advisor john bolton as a witness in the impeachment trial would unhinge the proceedings, opening the door to other witnesses and shutting down the senate for all of the business. patrick philbin, debbie white house counsel, said the house

had a chance to pursue mr. bolton -- deputy white house counsel, said the house had a chance to pursue mr. bolton's testimony but did not. it would set up a bad precedent. they write that while the senate ultimately must decide to the more immediate question is whether the senate will call any witnesses or demand documents from the administration in order to explore the impeachment case. every other impeachment trial in the senate has included witnesses, and democrats said it would be a cover-up of the highest order to defy that presidency -- that precedent. this is deputy white house counsel patrick philbin. [video clip] manager shift suggested there was no evidence the president was actually interested in burden sharing, because he did not apparently, according to david hale, raise it in the telephone conversation that he had with gordon sondland that have claims to have overheard in a restaurant in kiev.

let's look at the real evidence. as we explained, on june 24, there is an email on the record showing that email from one person in the department of defense to another, with a follow-up,e of potus asking specifically about burden sharing. "what do other nato ukrainespend to support ?" that is what they were following up on with the president. in the transcript itself -- excuse me -- in the transcript of the july 25 call it, the president asked -- he said, "we spend a lot of effort and time with ukraine, much more than european countries are doing, and they should be helping you more than we are." the germans have done almost nothing for you. all they do is talk, and i think it is something you should really ask them about." he goes on to say that he talked with

angela merkel about it, and that they are not really doing as much as the united states is doing. he is raising burden sharing, and president zelenskiy agreed with him. now, manager shift also suggested that there is evidence of some connection between the military assistance and investigations into 2016 interference because of a statement that acting chief of staff mulvaney made at a press conference. but that has been clear in the record since the press conference, that what he was saying was garbled and/or misunderstood, and he immediately clarified and said on that day, "the president never told me to withhold any money until the ukrainians did anything related to the server." part of the argument yesterday on the senate floor. john mcardle responding to some video requests i one of our

viewers, said that president trump had tweeted this video? john: this was about 14 hours ago. the president sending out this video of john bolton, radio free europe interview. taking place in august. the president sent this tweet, which is two words with it -- "game over pickup here is the video of john bolton. meeting president zelensky. the president called to congratulate president zelensky on his election and success in the parliamentary election. they were very warm and cordial calls. we are hoping that they will be able to meet in warsaw, have a few minutes together, because the success of ukraine maintaining its freedom, its system of representative government. the free market economy, free of corruption, and dealing with the problems of the bombast and crimea are high per 80's here

that are high priorities here. john: speaking of john bolton, more news about him yesterday, kyle cheney, one of the capitol hill reporters, tweeting, "congressman eliot engel revealed that bolton called him back in september and told him to look into the ambassador, marie yovanovitch alastair. already starting an investigation into you the ukrainian matters, but bolton appeared to support their efforts. kyle cheney linking to the statement from eliot engel and the foreign affairs committee. here is that whole statement. what it says, eliot engel saying that he and i spoke by telephone in september -- on september 23, saying on that call, ambassador bolton suggested to me, unprompted, that the committee look into the recall of the ambassador and strongly imply that something improper had , asrred around her removal

our top diplomat in ukraine. the statement from eliot engel goes on from there. follow-up reporting on that front, there are revelations about that contact. saying thatn speaker pelosi's office said she did not know about that september 23 angle-bolton phone call before she made her announcement on september 2 four, launching her impeachment inquiry. 24, launchingr her impeachment inquiry. next, to stockton, california. mike on the independent line. caller: hello. hi, bill. i have a different take than everybody else. i think that what is going on is just terrific. i think it is terrific for our children, for everyone who is interested in the government that we have, and i cannot give enough praise to both sides.

i am glad that we have, believe it or not, i am glad that we have adam schiff and we have nadler and all those folks, and i have no doubt that they are sincere in their beliefs, and then the attorneys for the president are just stellar. this patrick philbin fella, he is -- i am a lawyer, and he is at the top of his game. he is just excellent. thatmment was going to be if someone wants to get angry at this process and they don't like trump doing all this stuff, i really think that the house democrats, by not doing their theirhey have put presence in the senate in a box. philbin mentioned that you are going to turn the senate into an investigatory type of chamber,

and that was never commonplace. those democratic senators, it takes a long time to get to that level. they have accomplished a great career, and they are going to protect their institutions. i cannot believe that senators -- and they sit back and they think about what they are being demanded to do, to get these witnesses and prove the house's case, if they are going to protect their institution -- and that is why i think there is very little chance that the senate will go into the witness phase. i would not want to do it. why would any of us -- particularly our senators, who are the guardians of the institution -- why the heck would they buy into that? the other chamber did not do their job. they are just not going to do it. for that., thanks andrew in vista, california. democrats line.

caller: thank you for the call. i appreciate you taking the time. that call from stockton, california, never mentioned evan nunez. they never mention him. isn't that ironic? devin nunes, republican representative from that neck of the woods, who has had dealings with lev parnas. people who know lev parnas pronounce his name part us are pretty much everybody else says parnas. if you go back and listen to devin nunes, he said parana spirit he knows him really well. but let's not talk about that if we are from stockton, california paired also, you are an attorney from stockton that is interesting. what are you supposed to do when you have this coming out every single day, coming out drip by drip. the president has been guilty of so much more than this small little query about what everybody wants to know down to a phone call. it was a personal investigation done by a personal attorney to

achieve a personal benefit. if he was not seeking a personal benefit, why did he utilize his personal attorney to carry it out, whose sole purpose in life is to look after his personal client, not the president of the united states? if it was to the benefit of the united states, he would have used the fbi or the appropriate intelligence agency, but he did not want those people involved because it was not u.s. policy. it benefited only the president. host: we go to the republican line next and hear from bill in cleveland. caller: good morning. can the whole united states agree that lawyers really complicate things, don't they? we know what happened. if all men are created equal, and we have a constitution in the united states that basically all of us are equal, from the president on down to me in ohio. -- rob a go out saying bank and say i am running for

president, and it is in the national interest that i get this money today so i can buy me some weed. that is national interest. is that really what we are coming to now? we can all explain away a traffic ticket. we can all explain that we are running for president. what if donald trump today said i am going to kill an immigrant for national security? and he met milani a so he can get stormy in there. would we accept that? is this all acceptable? i don't know, i know what happens. we heard what happened, the lawyers sure got everybody's saying is, and, or but. vanessa on thes independent line from new jersey. caller: thank you for giving me a chance to say a few words. i am unhappy seeing people's comments, and surprised to talk

about lawyers like that. i want to thank the lawyer from the independent line when he said so beautifully about our reality. that is exactly what this is. we have many chances on our level to talk about political -- for this one particularly, i -- people say i want him out, i want him jailed. that is why hillary clinton called us deplorables. people should be careful with what kind of terminology they use. did not find any impeachable offense. host: a half-hour left of your phone calls and comments on the final day of the impeachment question and answer phase. 848-8000 for democrats.

for republicans, 202-748-8001. .ll others, 202-748-8002 let's check in with john mcardle. john: as the viewer mention, lev parnas was on capitol hill yesterday. we reported yesterday as several newspapers on capitol hill noted, he has gotten tickets through chuck schumer's office to be in the chamber to listen to part of the impeachment trial proceedings, but was unable to actually attend those due to the ankle bracelet that he continues to wear after his indictment. lev parnas had no problem talking with reporters and was the scene of quite a few reporters scrums yesterday here pbs news hour was in. at union station just down the street from the united states capitol, answering a few questions. >> it was very important. >> what do you want to say to

senators. what is the most important thing you want to say to senators? >> call the whistleblower. >> if he were called, what is the most important use of information that he would have. >> there were many quid pro quos. there is a lot that happened before july 25. >> can you tell us more about that? john: that was lev parnas on capitol hill yesterday. he was making his comments toward -- senator rick scott, i bring him up because he is taking the unusual step of running ads in iowa about the impeachment trial and also focusing on joe biden, a new ad this week, a 32nd ad in iowa. also a longer version, a two-minute version in which he talked about what is happening on the senate floor and joe biden. here is that longer version from

senator rick scott. senator rick scott. i am you may have heard, taken hostage along with 99 other people in the u.s. capital. we are being subjected to the cruel and unusual punishment of listening to the rantings of adam schiff, a person from a parallel universe. on a more serious note, everything that has happened in washington around this impeachment fiasco is a little theater. nothing is real and nothing will come of it. this drama has consumed us for months. it should have been conducted at the kennedy center for the performing arts, not the u.s. capitol. one more thing, you the taxpayers are funding this entire production. but there is no plot twist in this drama. it is all very straightforward. the democrats hate donald trump. they do not just dislike the guy, they hate him. they decided to impeach him even before he took office.

the case they presented to the senate was embarrassingly weak, therefore they want to use -- they want to fish were more evidence by calling for more witnesses per they have admitted to the jury that the case is lame. my message to the democrats is simple. i listened to your case and listened and listened. it is absurd. goodbye, go home. in nine an election months. go give that a shot. i promise you this -- if we end up having witnesses in the u.s. senate, joe biden will be called to testify. if that happens, he will be too carol the -- cowardly to show up. if he does, i will asking, "mr. biden, why did you advise a foreign country to fire a prosecutor, a country that was paying your son $83,000 a month, and are you proud that you got away with that? do you think the american people are that stupid? we all know what went on here. you are not fooling anyone.

thanks for listening. i want to go back to my diet of milk and water. please send help. john: you might be wondering why he is running these ads in iowa. saysakes a look at it and it might be because of 20 tony four. are you ready for rick scott, presidential candidate daca and healings to his article on cnn, talking about rick scott. rick scott mentions joe biden in the ad, and joe biden responded to rick scott at a campaign stop in iowa. here is joe biden from yesterday. wonderful newis senator from florida named rick scott, one of the richest people in america. he started running ads in iowa against me. well, god love him, as my mother would say. he is so interested he is so interested in a senator -- from a senator from florida, as to whether or not i should win an iowa caucus. isn't that fascinating?

i guess if i had that much money, i would spend it on anything i could. pretty amazing. it seems to me is, think about it, from a senator from florida sitting in washington come he decided to start running negative ads, a couple days before the iowa caucus. what do you think about that? it seems pretty simple to me. they are trying to smear me to stop me, they know if i am the nominee, i am going to beat donald trump. is four days until the iowa caucus. monday, president heading to iowa. outsideupport his camp the center ahead of president trump's rally. supporters braved the cold temperatures outside the nap center. he and mike pence are hosting a keep a great -- keep america great rally thursday night. onarrived at the center tuesday. "some people say i am addicted

to the rallies, but the truth is i love the president that much. he said this will be his 61st trump rally." that is coming tonight, 7:00 central, 8:00 eastern. we will cover it live on c-span.org. line, 202-748-8003. from maryland -- "i wish everyone would stop attacking the whistleblower. he or she was acting under the protection given to everyone who sees corruption and feels compelled to report the crime. do not attack the witness, tack the perpetrator. we will hear next from glenn in detroit. things for waiting. go ahead. caller: how are you doing, bill? host: fine, thank you are on the air. go ahead. we lost glenn. inwill go to brian pennsylvania. republican line. somerville, pennsylvania. caller: hello and thank you for taking my call.

i just have a quick comment, and i cannot believe that it really has not been talked about in the media as far as i know. the iceberg that has struck the house managers is the revelation that the subpoenas were not authorized because there was no full house resolution to give them authority. and what strikes me as this being true is one of the amendments that schumer suggested in the beginning of the senate trial was to make all of the past subpoenas valid. now, why would he put that in as a proposed amendment if they did not realize that they made a huge mistake? the fact of the matter for america to consider is that we have the rule of law in this country. not aboutocess is process. it is about the rule of law.

they did not follow the procedures. the evidence, so called evidence they gathered under subpoena is invalid, and therefore it should not be considered. is simplynate supposed to try the articles of impeachment before them, not gather additional information. the house keeps saying that what they have is irrefutable and overwhelming, and yet they claim they need more evidence. schiff said the other day that they could not come to a conclusion. well, then it should be dismissed. when iade a suggestion called in earlier a while back, and in louisville judge judy not being on c-span, she should judyce -- in lieu of judge

not being on c-span, she should replace the chief justice. the articles of impeachment are not only incomplete, they are invalid, in my opinion. courts, if you gather evidence illegally, it is not admissible. host: we will hear from john next in meridian, new york. john, go ahead. meridian, new york, john. sorry about that. there you are. caller: thank you for taking my call. i wanted to talk about some basic morals. between three years old and five years old and kindergarten and learn our pledge of allegiance. our pledge of allegiance is to the united states of america, not to the republican party the democratic party. i think when we pledge of allegiance, at the same time we are learning the pledge of allegiance, we learn to trust and learn the word trust. we learn through somebody may be

taking a silver dollar or something and we sit in a classroom for 23 hours until the person admits they took the dollar bill. but in these times, loyalty supersedes trust. , i would put like it as loyalty is probably the most important word in a mob, and i think right now more than ever, this country has turned into a bunch of mobs and gangs where it is more important to be loyal than it is to be trustful. i don't think there is any turning back and i think what we are seeing going on in washington right now during these hearings inside those chambers in a few days, i think you are going to see a miniature and between the democrats, the republicans, and i think it is going to be the beginning of a civil war. i think if this comes down to where we do not take witnesses, fors time to apply

residency in another country, preferably north. thank you for taking my call. host: we will hear from for mike on of democrats line in washington. caller: i just wanted to say that when trump was elected president, i said god put the man in office for a reason. now, i mean common sense will tell you -- i don't have any animosity. i am neutral, nonbiased. ,ut common sense would tell you if you catch him in lies and deceit, and all those wrong things, i think one caller called earlier and said that, what was the particular reason? what is it a national security issue with biden which would have went through doj, which could have been through different channels? see, that itsad to is like we are living in the 1960's again, where you are saying republican and democrat is just saying black and white. america needs to wake up and

realize that the decisions we make for the present affects the future. we cannot keep living in the past, ok? that is just about all i need to say, and i hope people receive this message and understand that when we look at our children, our grandchildren, what type of world will we have them in? service, theews msn story, news corporation, platform, knews ewz, the website features headlines from more than 400 large and small publishers from "the washington post" to the anchorage daily news, as well as the left leaning daily kos and

the washington examiner. the headlines, curated both by artificial intelligence and human editors, include links that send readers directly to publisher websites. the media companies can make money from the advertising and subscriptions news. tom does not yet have its own advertising. we will give you a chance. it is in a beta version. it says so right on the homepage. this is what it looks like. a new news service from news corporation. rupert murdoch's news z.com.ation, knew to your calls and hear from chris in oceanside, california. chris, go ahead. caller: yes, thank you for taking my call, bill. caller: yes, thank you for taking my call, bill. i just want to say that i am ashamed, being from california, for having these people out here, both with adam schiff and nancy pelosi, into the house of

representatives. and the senate respectively. for theo apologize voters out here for sending them to washington to destroy our nation. they are the most anti-american individuals i have ever seen in my life. are all the democrats anti-american and i hope the people will vote for our great president. vote for trump. host: host: gorge on our democrats line. good morning. caller: i cannot understand why in the united states of america that congressional -- duly elected congressional , speakionals, officials for the united states of america. attorneys, they

are not duly elected -- we do not even know them from america. who are these people? they are talking about twisting everything around. i don't understand it. i'm sorry, i'm lost. host: john mcardle showed a few minutes ago the ad created by senator rick scott from florida. now we hear from tim scott, from south carolina come on what are being called some of the potential vulnerable republican senators. here's what he said. i think senator romney is trying to find a pattern that helped him -- my point is that i do think my colleagues on either side are trying to take the majority in the senate. in my opinion, that is a whole goal have having the conversation. i think senator romney -- host: we will go next to north carolina, greensboro. this is elena on our independent line. caller: yes, i would just like

to say, the same way people second amendment, why don't they protect the 13th amendment? everybody cannot be wrong about foreign interference in our election. if we hold anything else sacred, we should hold that when sacred, just like people do the second amended. .nd i got four grandchildren all of them carry a gun and i love them. but i cannot understand why people don't hold the 13th amendment sacred like they do the second one. thank you. host: you bet. gordon, next up, from florida. republican line. caller: thank you for having me on. i am the guy that almost one the shadow case. i am a conservative. we are being distracted. almost 10% of our code of that is college debt. i am trying to get my log to get

--sident trump to reduce besides being the golden rule, student loan bankruptcy will sink lives before huge loans of money. i love president trump your you can google to see that i love president trump. i am a legend in florida. with solyndra, if they can get as liberal as they are handouts, what is up with the double standard here? what about the uniformity clause to the constitution? line onto the democrats next. saint stephens, south carolina. hello there. caller: my problem that i have, i don't understand why they can call witnesses. like, i saw the hearing

yesterday and they focused on hunter biden and joe biden. focusing ons trump's children. i watched c-span at i never saw you do a show where president trump -- there is a lot of stuff that goes on that you all do not air, and i do not think it is fair. what kinds of things in terms of what we do not air? whenr: for one thing, jared kushner could not get a clearance, i kept watching the show to hear more about it, and i heard no more about it. something like that i think the public should know about because if he cannot get a clearance like everyone else, something is wrong. the president should have the ability to give him a clearance that should not have the ability to give him a clearance just because he is his son-in-law. host: all the video that we

cover from the white house, capitol hill, etc. come all of that is archived on our website, c-span.org if we do not get it, obviously we cannot archive it, but everything we do cover is right there. one more check in with john daydle on this next-to-last potentially of the impeachment trial. go ahead. -- a lot a of folks focus on the impeachment trial, increasing focus on the coronavirus outbreak. i want to touch on that because senators and members of the house received an update yesterday and several have been tweeting about it, that update coming from the centers for disease control. senator dick durbin tweeting about his meeting yesterday, saying we are continuing to monitor the virus, grateful for the cdc's work. another member of congress, a democrat from washington saying for all the cdc reports, public risk is low, officials are expressing what he calls an appropriate level of concern for his unique health risk of the virus.

many best practices, he writes, for preventing the spread are those that are the same for the killedd the flu, which as many people in the u.s. as road rage fatalities. rick larsen tweeting that he practices everyone to common sense, get a flu shot, wash your hands, cover your mouth and nose when coughing and sneezing, and avoiding close contact with others if you are sick. mike gallagher, a republican from wisconsin, also tweeting about this topic, saying it is abundantly clear that the communist party of china is not being fully transparent about the origins and scale of the crisis. china has also refused to help the cdc experts for almost a month. theays we cannot let chinese cummins party's insecurity to endanger the world. he went on to tweet that we are not acting aggressively enough here and that we need a targeted travel ban immediately or this will get much worse and we will

see human to human transmission inside the united states. that is a few of the numbers of congress, what they have been tweeting about the coronavirus. some good news on the public-health front, this story, also from the cdc yesterday. here is a story in "the new york times, american life expectancy rises for the first time in four years, and a very big reason for fatal drugause overdoses in the united states declined for the first time in three decades. the cdc numbers dating back to 2018. their final tally. at least some good news this morning on the public-health front. host: one story we should touch on before the end of the program, brexit becomes official tomorrow. the new york times reporting that the you parliament approved that. they write that the european parliament voted in brussels wednesday to ratify the withdrawal agreement. withdrawal from the european union, which will formally happen on friday, midnight brussels time the occasion was

marked by speeches and the singing of auld lang syne. hopefully it is not goodbye, it voir, and till we meet again that is from "new york times.com." a trump-- "as supporter, have watched the government manipulate. i trusted trump because of his promise to expose the swamp and drain it." .o joanne go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have one question. why would dershowitz after 20 years of being a professor change his mind? that maybe -- i am probably wrong, but this is my theory -- why would

dershowitz say all of these things that are so confusing to the public, and i think maybe it is because, you know, president trump or william barr can help him in those cases where he was maybe just getting a massage instead and dealing with underage girls. maybe he needs some help in those cases. the reason he is throwing out , throwing out all of these weird suggestions that to commit a crime is not really a crime, maybe laying up there in his tidy whitey's. to theet's go independent line, mickey. iller: i hear about a lot -- hear a lot of talk about election interference, and everybody should be concerned with election interference. i am concerned not only with foreign interference but also domestic interference.

see as domestic interference is when the t and c -- the dnc conspired against bernie sanders. in the primary election. that was domestic interference. foreign dossier, that is domestic and foreign interference. impeachment charges i am seeing now is domestic interference, and trump could shut down this voting witness thing just by declaring executive privilege the same way obama did during fast and furious. it being against to lie to congress. they need a law that congress

cannot lie to congress or the american people. host: from mississippi, this is eric. caller: good morning morning. 1.i had to make on the impeachment trial is, the democrats have set a high bar for impeachment back during the clinton years. clinton was convicted of a crime, and he was assaulting women and interns in the white house. the democrats did not see fit to impeach him over that, so i cannot see how anything they are saying here can even approach that. --, you know, the democrats you kind of lost me, 20, 30 years ago. you all cut harvey weinstein loose, epstein loose. you acquitted all of them when you let bill clinton go and you

set the me too movement back 20 years. host: myrtle beach, south carolina, democrats like. good morning. caller: good morning. i don't understand. it is simple for a kid to understand it? you cannot compare apples to peanuts. those are two different things. there is nobody perfect in the world, but the united states has gotten away from prayer. to callgs that you need it is the elephant in the room, and that is we have gotten away from prayer. so any and everything in this country, they let go. so you might as well that the president go. stop holding him hostage on what he said he said what he said and he do what he do. so it is just a waste of time.

but everybody in this country needs to get back to the main source, and that is god. opinion piece from "the new york times," from elizabeth holtzman, as part of the effort , thepeach president nixon judiciary committee in 1974, president trump's defense lawyer, alan dershowitz, my professor, harvard law school is flat out law that frontal wrong that abuse of power is not a basis for impeachment h. something dershowitz himself admits, just as important is the assertion that flies in the face of the articles of impeachment. voted against pressure to -- president richard nixon in 1974, these articles did not charge nixon with a crime. dershowitz willfully ignores that now. the house is coming in in a couple of minutes. a couple more calls. we go next to deborah in

columbia, missouri. independent line. caller: hi. i just love c-span. i get both sides of the story. the thing about this impeachment -- well, it was not bipartisan to begin with. that is the problem. that is a big problem. all the impeachments that we have had before have been bipartisan. and i don't believe that the house is really understanding the rule of law or practicing by the rules of law. they did something yesterday that should have got their case also i think it is real curious about the bidens. joe biden had no interest in theing for president until new president of ukraine was put into office. on zelensky ran anticorruption.

immediately after he was elected, biden announces that he is running for office. i think that is -- host: so you think that announcement was intentional, not whence a dental, that joe biden had been considering running for president for quite some time? caller: know, because i have heard interviews with him and he was not interested in running. put in that zelensky was there to stop the investigations into the corruption that has been taking place between the u.s. and ukraine. host: i will let you go there. a quick comment, from nevada. the house is coming in next. caller: ok, great. the quickest comment i have is that if you read the transcript, you will see the ukraine leader started out with the conversation in investigating, and that is how it went into that. and biden is corrupt.

president trump had every right to investigate biden. host: we will let you go there, cindy p the house is coming in next, taking up an effort on limiting military action against iran. we will see you here tomorrow morning at seven a clock a.m. eastern on "washington journal." -- father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. we give you thanks o god, for giving us another day. as the congress enters a long weekend following a contentious period of time on the hill, give them rest. as they encounter the voices of constituents back home, may all their exchanges be fruitful and promise encouragement toward productive work here in the people's house when they return. may the power of your truth and our faith in your provenance give them all the confidence they must have toth