and then dave price, the political director for who-tv tv. as always, you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" is next. [captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ host: this is the "washington journal" for february 3. but you are looking at drone video of des moines, iowa, one of the many cities and towns where residents will participate in the iowa caucuses, casting the first votes of the primary election process. later on in the program, we will talk with several guests from des moines about events of today in iowa and you can listen for our coverage and watch starting at 7:30 tonight on espn, c-span.org and our c-span radio app. as this takes place in iowa, republicans and democrats start closing arguments of the

impeachment trial. a vote expected on wednesday. watch today at c-span2 starting at 11:00 this morning, c-span.org and our radio app. and our first hour, you can comment on the process of the impeachment trial that's played out. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. and independents, 202-748-8002. if you want to text us, you can do so at 202-748-8003. tweet us @c-spanwj. and you can post on our facebook page at facebook.com/cspan. "u.s.a. today" this morning has the pictures of the candidates campaigning to become become of the united states on the democratic side. you've seen a lot of these candidates over the weekend if you've been watching c-span and you can see these candidates as it plays out tonight as iowans go and participate in their caucus. here's a lineup of what you can expect on our network. starting at 7:30 tonight, you

can see the democratic caucus play out. and all the results of today's caucus, the candidates' speeches and information you need to know leading out of this contest and the votes tonight will be at 9:30 eastern standard time. you can start watching for that on c-span. in our first hour this morning, our focus on these closing arguments as they're call in the senate impeachment process. that will be today starting at 11:00 on c-span2 and a final

vote on acquittal. until then, you'll hear debates. we'll take your calls. 1 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. d 202-748-8002 for independents. public polling from nbc and the "wall street journal" and some of the findings there saying that some 46% of voters on the survey that was taken saying the senate should remove the president from the office from the impeachment trial, 49% said he should serve out his term. it was by an 11% margin that voters said they believe mr. ukraine investigate investigate olitical opponent.

again, that's just some of the public polling leading up today. you can watch it today all play out at 11:00 this morning on c-span. we'll take your calls for this hour before we move to iowa politics. jack starts us off this morning from michigan. republican line. jack, good morning. go ahead. yeah, good morning. rning. host: you're on. go ahead. caller: oh, good morning. thanks for taking my call. host: go ahead, jack. you're on. caller: ok. what i want was wanting to talk about was the campaigns for trial. ego andrump's got a big i know he sometimes don't act presidential, but forgive me a couple of minutes, some guy called in here a couple of weeks ago and say why don't you tell

him what trump is for -- that commentator he's on. he -- it's not his job to tell him what he's done but he's appointed over 200 circuit judges, two supreme court judges, got the military backed up and got the bestest man in over 50 years and trying to do everything that he got elected to do and anybody that's been following this close will know that the democrats, they don't have any support from the republicans and the democrats, it's all political. host: so you don't think the president should be impeached. why? caller: well i don't think he's done anything to be impeached for. you know? host: ok. ok. that's jack in michigan. again, viewers, if you wouldn't mind turning down your television while you're waiting for the conversation to go on,

that makes it go smoother. dean in lancing, hello. caller: hey. had three republican presidents, we've had war every time. little bush jumped on the helicopter and landed down the ship after they dropped hussein and killed him and -- host: dean. let's stoic the process of impeachment and what do you think as they start the closing arguments today? they're true. they're true because he proved -- before he got him running -- host: well when you say they're true what, do you mean by that?

caller: well, filing bankruptcy, all that and getting by with it and the taxpayers having to pay where he had to pay. file bankruptcy, all that. that's fine as long as you're a thief, you can do that. host: ok. we'll move to jeffrey. jeffrey is in edmond, oklahoma, independent line. hi. caller: god bless you, pedro. i look at the impeachment inquiry very much as the historical presidents of the emmett till trial and the benedict arnold process. the emmett till trial, it was no doubt that the crime was committed. he jury was 12 whites and they found the gentleman, the participate pants who killed emmett till not guilty and then the next day, they went to "life" magazine and told the true story of how they did it, why they did it and what they

did. host: how do you draw that directly to the impeachment inquiry we're talking about? -- impeachment process we're talking about? caller: both sides, it was all one-sided, the democrats. and in the senate where it was supposed to be the jury, the senators that made up their minds, basically, a senator majority leader mcconnell had said and lindsey graham had said they wouldn't be impartial, just like the emmett till trial. those folks knew the crime was clearly committed. they had the people under the circumstances of crime was done. and just like bolton's book and mulvaney will come out to prove that the activities were clearly. -- clearly done. host: did you think the house brought a sufficient case? caller: i thought that the house

responsibility of bringing the case, they did. do i consider it to be sufficient case? i thought there were levels for which it was insufficient based on the presidential capacity, the president's capacity to not allow any of the necessary information whether it was documentary or testimonial to be presented. that's the reason that i spoke o the idea of benedict arnold. he was highly popular. he was of the right hand man of george george washington and he basically conspired with the foreign government. hey pulled him in. and in the same similar capacity that he is here. host: because you're on the independent line and we've been talking to several independents over the last couple of weeks

about everything that's been presented. at the end of the day, do you think this is an impeachable offense? caller: i thought it had some grounds for being impeachable because when the constitution was written in talking about high crimes and misdemeanor, there was no codified criminal and law and it becomes original intent which republicans hold so dear. so it was to present foreign interference in our country basically, this is the reason for the imemoluments clause and this is the reason for which we are supposed to be a country of liberty. ost: ok. 202-748-8001 for republicans. democrats, 202-748-8000.

independents, 202-748-8002. it was the lead health impeachment facebook questioned about the case that the house managers brought before the senate. here's the interview. >> but you could have stuck with that subpoena of john bolton that you initially of his deputy that was seen as a proxy for john bolton that the house then pulled back from and this is one of the chief criticisms of the case that you made, that you didn't take it to the courts that the house could have had a win in its pocket and moved this forward. how do you respond to that? was it a misstep? >> no, it wasn't at all. and i think that's a disenjoins argument for the president's lawyers to make for a couple of reasons. if we continue with litigation , it are doing this moment would probably be one to two years before we had a decision with john bolton.

the president would have been able to cheat with impunity because they could delayed and played out the clock but it is worse than that. because while the president's lawyers are in court in the senate court saying the house should have made more efforts to overcome our obstructionism in making that remarkable argument in court on the very same day they were making that argument in court other trump lawyers were saying judge, you can't don his case to compel mcgahn to testify because you're not empowered to enforce subpoena. so they're arguing that on both sides of their mouth. the senators should not let them get away from that. host: we are here with rob next on the democrats line. caller: thank you. good morning, c-span. appreciate the work that you do. if john bolton is listening or anybody else who knows him is listening, please tell him to go

on television on tuesday and i was going to say that where do we draw the line of president trump to investigate his political rival now that there seems to be a new precedent that's set? where do you draw the line? what if trump's children wanted to build the trump hotel in russia or turkey and there's other developers that were competing for the same property? can trump now call on russia? can he call on turkey to investigate? what would be competition for his own family business? host: so rob, to the first point you made about john bolton because we've already seen text from the book come out and still expect acquittal on wednesday, what do you think a john bolton interview would make in this process? caller: well, the republican senators except for two are

obviously not willing to consider a fair trial. so it would shine a light on that they're just, you know, how know, how much they are hypocritical. but my last point is -- host: to that point and i apologize. do you think then that would even if he were to go before television, it would change the tend result? caller: you know, what if a democrat is running for a governor or for the senate or for any state for a city official, for a mayor, can trump now call on to have a political rival of the republican party? can he now start to investigate political rivals to the republican party on state matters, state elections? i think we've opened up a pandora's box and if he can't be held accountable for this, how are you going to hold him accountable? host: so, rob, again, with john bolton, do you think it changes the end result?

caller: the end result -- yes, it would change the end result because it would shine a light and it would show that we are not the republicans in the senate are refusing to back up what our constitution stands for and it will show exactly that they are absolutely hypocrites when it comes to standing up for democracy. host: ok. that's rob in boca raton, florida, to the idea that the caller brought about president and what could happen after wednesday. one of the points he makes is when it comes to the strengths of the executives he says that lawmakers from both parties have on multiple fronts among them, war powers, strayed strategy, spending and immigration policy over the last two decades. republican conservatives though traditionally leery of so much centralized power anywhere in the government have gone along,

he boarder part shawn -- host: from missouri, independent line, jack is up next in eberton. hello. caller: it will. good morning. thank you for taking my call. host: you're on. go ahead. caller: yes. ell, i just want to make a few comments. i am an immigrant from europe and i came here legally through the immigration status. and i have had been a democrat registered for many years and which i have had backed off from a long time ago now. and i would like to call myself

an independent. and i was watching the trials and everything that was going on . even though i don't agree with trump and i do not agree with his style as a president, i find out that this impeachment trial, it was not fair to the whole process. and i believe that there was a lot of partisan politics in it and i blame the house democrats for the whole procedures. host: when you say it's not fair specifically why? caller: well first of all, let's go to the fact. in the house impeachment procedures from my understanding, it was that the republicans wanted some witnesses with which the house democrats have had blocked. now when the trial have moved into the senate, they wanted additional witnesses which they

have had a chance to call them in the first phase of the trial in the house, which based on the political purposes, they have had chosen not to. now that the trial have moved into the senate which my understanding is the senate, it was the phase where the case have had came already put together, and they were about to judge the case, not look for more witnesses. host: do you think the revelation of john bolton changed the nature though, whether witnesses should be called? caller: well, i kind of have a personal opinion about it. politicians from both sides, you know, once they lose their politicians and once they lose their jobs or everything like that, they will sometimes come and say bad things about the parties that they have been worked for.

so i don't know if john bolton, the whole story in his book and everything like that, it would be completely accurate. i really don't care much for him. the er trusted him 100% in first place. but i definitely even if i disagree with trump on many what you call? way of governing, i still don't think that there was a need for impeachment. i was also very concerned about what the bidens did and what were they doing there in the first place? and you know joe biden is in the record talking about fighting the prosecutor in ukraine. i want to know why that is not an impeachment type of a deal. host: ok. that's jack in missouri. again, 11:00 is the next phase of the impeachment process.

closing arguments as they're being described. you can see that on c-span2. then comes the debate on the articles and then come wednesday, we're expecting a vote or at least the vote on final acquittal. so that place out -- plays out all this week. we have touchdown on tuesday. so a lot of -- state of the nion on tuesday. if you wish, you can go to our radio app and download that if you are going to be traveling today or doing other things. you can listen to it from the radio app. let's go to massachusetts in west springfield. we'll hear from thomas, republican line. hi. caller: hello. host: hi. you're on. caller: thanks for taking my call. hello? host: you're on. go ahead. caller: oh. i think that president trump should be waited.

i believe that he's innocent of all charges. host: why is that? caller: the democrats have proven nothing. host: what makes you come to that conclusion? caller: because if they had proven the case, they wouldn't need more witnesss and more testimony. they've proven nothing to me. they accuse him of everything -- they accuse our president of everything that they seem to be doing. and this -- they decided day one when he took office. host: democrats line from mary in maybe west virginia. apologies if i'm pronouncing your town or city wrong. democrats line. go ahead. caller: hi. thank you so much for accepting my call. yeah, maybe yeah, maybe no. always gave me a laugh since i

got married. i got a masters of art and one of the majors a , of -- aspects of learning leadership is learn here we draw the line. when we talk about economies and things of the future, there's a lot of new hope on the horizon in the form of human onlyics and the eastern country. the academia system. host: and how would that apply to impeachment? caller: it would be helpful because that's a line that trump crossed. there's nothing fiduciary or

trustful. we're living in a manipulated fashion of real time instead of just having that sweet conversation that life can give each of us. host: ok. but specifically again, how does it deal with the articles of impeachment against the president of the united states which is up for d.t. this week? caller: well, i'm an immigrant. well, i'm first american of immigrant grandparents from germany. it is tough to be here. and to -- being trusting in god is a lesson in what good diplomacy is all about. host: ok. jarrett is next from plymouth, pennsylvania, independent line. hi. caller: hey, what's happening? host: fine, thanks. go ahead. you're on. caller: yeah, i'm pretty sick to my stomach of the impeachment nonsense.

i'm tired of the democrats by manipulating their feelings. i think what trump did wasn't exactly great either but there's no direct evidence. so there's always reasonable doubt. host: do you think the democratic case had impact though? caller: oh, no. nobody wants to. host: there was watches. people viewed it. caller: a couple of million, but, i mean -- host: so specifically, what is it about their case that you find lacking? caller: well, substance. and the house trial, when they're in the house, the republicans bullet fired the questions. do you know about this? do you know any direct evidence? do you hear this directly? it's just no, no, no, no. and it's just nonsense to listen to from here on out. trump is doing weird stuff and that it shouldn't be accepted but i don't think he should be impeached fitter. host: do you think the call that

is the center of this was the proper one between the president and the president of ukraine? caller: yeah. obviously trump did too. he released it really quickly. the republicans have made their case. and i don't know why they keep going on about it. i think the democratic party needs a big rework because they're just sick with hate and they need to figure out how the hell to get back to the party after j.f.k. because this is just unacceptable. host: ok. that is jarrett in preliminary moat, pennsylvania, to the point of viewership. it goes on from there. there's other stories out there

when it comes to the actual ratings that were taking place of viewership. but when it comes to the appropriateness of the phone call, one of the people who was asked about was a republican from iowa. she was on cnn, questioned about the president's phone call, asked if it was appropriate. >> i think corruption is absolutely the right thing to do. if he was tying it to other things, that's the president. it's probably something hat i wouldn't have done but focusing on corruption, absolutely. >> he didn't mention corruption in that call. he just mentioned joe and hunter biden and burisma and this conspiracy theory about ukraine interfering in the election. >> right. probably not something that i would have done. >> but it still is wrong? >> the president has a lot of latitude to do what he wants to do. again, not what i would have done, but certainly, again, going after corruption, jake. >> so you're saying it's not

perfect, i get that. if it's not something he would have done, why wouldn't you have done it? because it was wrong? because it was inappropriate? >> i think generally speaking going for corruption was the right thing to do. he did it maybe in the wrong manner. i think he should have done it through different channel. he should have probably gone to the d.o.j. he should have worked through those entities but he chose to go a different route. >> assuming president trump is yed on wednesday, are you confident that he won't try to get another foreign country to look into another foreign country?

host: we have john here. go ahead. caller: yes. thanks for taking my call. my quick comment is it all comes down to intent. if intent was to root out corruption and that's it, you know, of course it's not a impeachable offense. if it's 100% because he's worried about biden in the election, then maybe it is impeachable. and they determine the same facts so differently. i think it's because people, most people come in with these preconceptions. republicans come in with the preconception that his intent was perfect. democrats come which with the preconception that his intent was malicious. and so my guess is it's probably somewhere in between. i just don't think it needs --

meets the standard for impeachment. host: when you were going in yourself, i'm assuming you didn't take a particular position. did one side versus the other sway you more as what was being debated and presented as information and rebutted by the white house team? caller: not really. i mean, everything they said, it seemed rational in terms of the arguments from either side. what it came down to was the democrats couldn't produce evidence that show that his intent was purely political. and just as an aside comment. democrats keep saying interfering with elections, interfering with elections, you now what, about the dossier? host: do you think this impeachment trial will have long-lasting implications particularly in an election year? caller: my guess is that this is

going to galvanize republicans because mostly the way the house trial went. because the republicans were stymied. of course they had some rights to call and ask certain questions but adam schiff pretty much ran the house impeachment trial. people who are watching will see that as unfair. and i think that's why the democrats got what they got in the senate trial. maybe if the house trial was run more fairly, maybe some republicans would have voted for additional documents and witnesses. but they kind of got what they wanted there. i think the american people saw i think most -- some undecided voters and some republicans will be galvanized to vote for trump. host: john in alexandria, virginia. if you are just joining us, we're spending the first hour of the program today talking about the senate impeachment trial, expected to conclude later on this week. today's closing arguments.

you could see at 1:00 on c-span 2. later on in the program, four guests joining us from des moines, iowa, as part of our coverage of the iowa caucuses. those residents of iowa participating in those caucuses today and tonight. you can see those results starting at 9:30 with that and you can watch caucuses play out at 7:30. that will take place at our various networks in the evening. find out more information about that on c-span.org. we will continue on your calls on the senate impeachment and the impeachment process. 202-748-8001 for republicans, 202-748-8000 for democrats and independents, 202-748-8002. if you want to text us your thought, it is 202-748-8003 post on twitter and facebook too. we'll hear next from dee. dee is from okeechobee, florida, republican line. caller: yeah. hey, good morning there, fella. hey, i want to tell you guys --

oh, excuse me. about the schiffs. him and his soapbox is constantly on his soapbox and he's about as phony as they can come. if he would get back into your archive. back in 2005, ok? because right now, schiff thinks that bowes going to be that whatever, you know, his best friend against trump. you can log back to 2005 and get his live interview with the reporter talking about bolton. and he had so many adjectives for bolton and they were all bad. now all of a sudden, he's demanding bolton. gets on his soapbox, ok, and every day, the same old thing over and over and over again with schiff. wanting bolton on there. but you need to go on back to 2005 to where he had is this interview about bolton and about bowes lies and how corrupt he was. host: so are you saying that ambassador bolton is lying in his book? caller: well, sure he is. they get out of office and they put these books out there and

half of it's true and half of it is all false and if schiff had all this explaining to do about bolton, it's not any better today. i think they need to go on back to 2005 -- host: well, you said thad several times. why not? why not particularly in the case of it's been revealed in the last week or so? caller: because bolton wrote this book. they got after bolton because of the book he wrote. that's the whole reason behind this whole thing. bolton, you know, he's a liar. number one. he's false. he's been like that for many, many years and we all know that. and whatever he puts in his book t probably not true. ok? he makes a big bucks off these books. they make millions of these books. host: ok. that's dee in florida, giving us her thoughts this morning.

let's go through a couple of tweets and otherwise. this is from texas. saying that caller, a previous caller said no direct evidence. the republicans blocked the direct evidence adding the words cover-up. another viewer, this is francis from texas. i don't believe the polls. the majority only of americans want the president removed. pollsters proved they are willing to lie or incompetent. they knew before the trial what the final verdict would be. and they didn't disappoint donald. karen from fort worth, texas, texting us saying the impeachment trial, waste of time. it's basically over the democrats need to do their jobs. stop wasting time on impeachment. and then bob also texting us from hometown, illinois. i agree with senator schumer. there will be a permanent asterisk attached to this impeachment because it was partisan, adding what the president's best in 50 years,

amazing accomplishments. you can put thoughts on twitter if you want, facebook, text us if you like. all we ask if you're texting us, if you include your name and your city and your state so we know where you're texting from. we appreciate it. alex is up next in washington, d.c., independent line. caller: hey, so the -- i'm not sure which way to go. wasn't too sure about trump. after the last three years and this whole impeachment sham, which i think is clearly a sham, there's two impeachment articles. first you have the obstruction of congress, which really is an obstruction of the democrats side of the house. and minus two or three democrats that went over it. and voted against it. and then you have the first impeachment article which is basically investigation of a political opponent. which is first off, the investigation against burisma

actually had started a -- prior to biden even running. also, you have to consider the ct that when joe biden tried records he prosecutor, had shown that he was poisoned twice. why would people try to be poison this guy? are they trying to prevent him against testifying something? >> all that being said, as the evidence that was presented and everything as we know it now, where's yours mind on whether the president should be impeached or not? caller: ultimately, i think that the -- the president was investigating corruption. and i think it was in the public interest. and i also think it was in his own interest. and if he did do a quid pro quo, i think that considering that it was also in the national

interest, i think that would have been a non-impeachable event but since we don't know whether that took place or not, there's really no case at all. host: ok. that's alex in washington, d.c. on our independent line. again, you can call for the next 20 minutes or so. if you want to make your thoughts on impeachment know, the numbers are on the screen. you can also post on facebook, twitter and our text us as well if you wish. we'll hear from james from louisiana. hi. you're next up. caller: yeah, good morning. my concern this whole thing, guilty or not guilty, impeachable or non-impeachable is what are the kids from middle school, high schoolers going to think about this and in 10, 15 years from now? i look at the 1960's, the police

action in vietnam and then the kids that were in 10, 15 years and how it came up in the 1960's and 1970's and watched people dodge the draft. -- couldn't afford college host: why do you think that people 15 years from now are going to care, particularly young people? caller: yeah. host: but why do you think that? caller: history has shown that. it was after the people dodging in the draft and everything and got that love peace movement and the democratic convention in chicago fighting with the college kids -- host: but how does that relate to the senate impeachment? why do you think they will care about this 10, 15 years from now? caller: if you sit down and look at this from a kids' point of view, they're not going to

understand the unfairness that's the politics as a whole. so the politics as a whole, this two system is not working and people don't want to sign on to independents. you only have a handful of independents in politics which is not enough to turn anything. host: ok. that's james in louisiana. let's go to czar bluff, alabama, republican line. paul, you're next up. caller: good morning, sir. i like to add a little leverage to this situation if you don't mind. seems last week during the impeachment trial, two brilliant lawyers decided they was legal -- i got get a cup of coffee and as they were going down the steps, one of them fell and hit his head. they rushed home the hospital.

after a little while, his wife came in. the doctor comes out and explains that he's had a severe head trauma. and that his brain is swelling and if they don't operate, he's going to die. of course she says for him to operate on him because he's a brilliant lawyer and we need him. the doctor goes back and three hours later, he comes out and he says well, ma'aming we saved him. that's great. that's wonderful. she says. can i see him? he said well, you can but let me explain. and in order to cut him, we had to cut out three quearlts of his brain. and now he can speak but he has no reasonibility and no intellect. host: how does this all apply? caller: it's impeachment. so >> but how does this apply to impeachment? caller: i'm talking about impeachment. host: right. but what's the point you're trying to make? caller: well, i don't guess

you're going to let me make it, are you? host: you're starting a story and it's a long one and what's the parallel you're trying to make. caller: all right. can i finish if it's about to -- i don't know. host: just go ahead and make your point, please. caller: [laughter] my point is the ignorance of the left is astounding and is evidence for three hours on c-span. when listening to these people talking about all kind of stuff that is just ignorant and when you put that ignorance into form of an impeachment and it goes to the senate for trial and there is no evidence that is impeachable, then what you end up with is the senate saying we're not doing your job, adam schiff. you go back and if you can make a case, make a case. host: ok. let's hear from daniel from california, independent line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i wanted to point out a couple

of things. one of them being that, you know, we all have the benefit of hindsight and hindsight, they say is 20-20 vision and it seems that the house accomplished something pretty monumental in gathering, conduct the investigation and obtaining the impeached articles of impeachment against trump. that was their win. they knew going into the senate that they were fighting an uphill battle. nancy pelosi took approximately 10, 14 days before delivering selecting the managers and delivering the articles and that is the point of in time when it's in the democrats were trying to find the best strategy. and unfortunately and i know this is coming from the perspective of hindsight, but they've made the wrong choice. they knew going into the senate it was an uphill battle. at the try to make the case to obtain four votes. they figured we need four republican votes in order to

remove the president. looking back, i hope that the democrats because they still have this morning. they still have tomorrow to try to make this case and i hope somebody is listening so that they can make this case. host: so let me -- with that in mind then, you say impeachment was a win for them as far as the case themselves presented in the senate. do you think -- what do you think ultimately of how they did that? caller: i think their mistake in presenting to the senate is they try to turn it into a case of ok, documents and witnesses. in order have a fair trial in the senate, we need documents and witnesses. by doing that, they opened the door for republicans to point out well wait a minute, back in the house, you had an opportunity to look at documents witnesses. and there's a lack of education amongst american people to understand that the house representatives function is very much like the police. they investigate the crime. they put together the report or a grand jury that issues an indictment.

the trial is meant to happen in the senate. and there in that lack of explanation is allowing the republicans to capitalize saying you're asking for documents in evidence but you have that opportunity. host: ok. daniel, if the acquittal does not happen when it comes to the house itself, is it a mix being a as far as what they succeeded or what they accomplished? caller: well that's now the platform that they're facing. now the republican, if they have an acquittal, so trump can say i was acquitted. the trial vindicated me. whereas the house can say there's always going to be an sterisk next to your name. i can't associate myself with this republican party any longer. there's too much flaw.

there's not enough conservative substance there. host: ok. that's daniel in california. that final acquittal vote expected to take place wednesday. the state of the union expected to take place tomorrow. and then today's senate proceedings will take place at 11:00 on c-span2. the iowa caucuses today as well, this evening. a lot of things happening all at once. follow along with our coverage hen you go to our website at c-span.org. we heard several callers referenced a lot of context and subtext leading up to the actions of this week. if you go to our website, there's alcs all the information, all the hearings, all the documents that have been released, all that available at the website at c-span.org. for the president's part, he was on fox news yesterday during the super bowl, did an interview on a variety of topics, one of the points of discussion, was the impeachment. president trump: well it's been very unfair from the day i won

and i really say from far before the day i won, from the day i came down the escalator with our future first lady who is doing such a good job. to be honest with you, i think it's probably -- it probably started from there. it's been a very, very unfair process. the mueller report, russia, russia, russia, as you say, which was total nonsense. it was all nonsense, the whole thing was nonsense. but it was a very unfair and mostly it was unfair to my family. i mean, my family suffered because of all of this and many other families suffered also. it was a very serious thing that hould never happen to another. host: joe from nebraska in omaha. democrats line. hello. caller: good morning. i'm a 25-year-old military officer and i'm surprised at things i hear coming from the american people. how can you have --

[indiscernible] who stands by watching his minions the reputation of a 30-year diplomat, why she she fired in public instead of giving the decency of being told privately that -- she had the fight to fire him. that's not an issue. but it's a manner in which it was -- it would seem to me that bolton is now -- under the bus and -- [indiscernible] there is no grateful exit. everybody becomes one of them. i'm a democrat. i buried two brothers who were democrats. we're not communists. we never wanted to be communists. and i'm disgusted with the administration. >> do you believe what ambassador bolton wrote about the exchange in the white house?

caller: i believe that boltons came in on a high tide because he was the answer, especially to the right wing conservatives. and now suddenly bolton is persona non grata. you're not welcomed here. you're lying. and how often can they tell themselves that everybody's lying about this guy? host: but to the specifics that ambassador bolton wrote, do you believe those? caller: yes. he has no reason i think, at this time, to lie. the question of he wants to sell books. bolton, it's the same bolton that i've watched for the last 15 or 20 years. he hasn't changed other than the fact that like kelly and a lot of other people who left the administration, he disagreed with them. the last thing i want to say is, you know, it is getting awful crowded in the ukraine because rick perry was there trying to -- up business for his friends.

manfred was there. -man forth was there. that was going on in ukraine. host: billy is in rhode island, republican line. caller: good morning, sir. this is ridiculous. nothing's being done for the american people. and everybody's walking around hating him. if you want to hate him, hate him. that's fine. but they don't need to -- they have no reason why they hate him. they just say i hate him. this man has not buried his head in the sand and just coddled and walked away. he's doing what he's supposed to be doing. host: and that includes then the phone call and everything related to ukraine? you think those were proper motives then? caller: no, i don't think he brought up anything that was out

of line because there was people listening. and he put out the transcripts. so, you know, i think the whistleblower may have said something wrong, and i think the democrats blew it all up because they want to impeach him. host: so when you hear senators from tennessee and iowa talking, questioning about their phone call itself and about the properness of it, does that change your mind automatic when you hear republican senators make these kind of comments? caller: well, it doesn't. not at all. it's not the first president of the united states to make a phone call to an attorney forche eader about something. everything is coming out. l this dirt between from

everybody. it's just all coming out. i don't think john bolton is telling the truth. host: ok. that's billy in rhode island. senator alexander was the topic of the "wall street journal"'s editorial this morning. it quotes him of shortly after last week's votes saying it was inappropriate. "it was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and withhold the united states aide to encourage that investigation." he said in a statement. the editorial said it made two other crucial points -- host: again, that's just some of the comments from the "wall street journal."

if you go to the "new york times" this morning, they also talk about the senate impeachment in their editorial saying this. with the senate's blessing for a scheming ukraine investigate the bidens, mr. trump now poses an even greater threat for the next election. the public support for calling witnesses was at peace the minority politics. its president lost the popular vote by three million votes. -- host: again, there's more of that in the "new york times" too. if you want to read it there. we'll go to richard next. richard in massachusetts,

independent line. hi. caller: hi. my thing is, you know, when trump appointed bolton to his staff there and the democrats hated him. oh, he was a warmonger. he's liar. you can't trust him. they despise him. now all of a sudden, they're in love with him. this is what i mean by politicians. they'll go anywhere. they don't care. and that's why i'm telling -- i'm 75 years old and i never voted in my life. i went to the military in 1965 to the army. i did everything i'm supposed to do. work, work, work, and retire. i am going to go behind the curtains to go -- vote for a liar. and one thing i like about trump is that he's like one of us. he tells it the way it is. he doesn't sweet talk or trying to school you around.

he just tells it right here. and that's why i like him. but i still never voted. thank you for listening to me. host: dell ma from new york, our democrats line. hi. caller: good morning, america. it's really surprising and amazing how people think. you either right or you're wrong. you cannot ask someone from another country to intervene in our affairs. i don't care if it's democrat, republican, independent or whoever it is. you cannot do that there's rules, procedures and regulations to follow, even when you want to find out what is corrupt in another country. the president don't take it on on his own. he's pose supposed to have people working on the administration on these kind of things. and furthermore, if one president is going to ask another country to interfere many our elections and hold back money that is supposed to have

been approved already to give to another country, then what stops the next president? whether he's democrat or republican? let's be honest and frank about things. host: but ultimately, why do you think -- i'm assuming you think this might be impeachable. specifically why? caller: because you cannot ask another country to interfere in our election and hold the money back, which was approved already. that's evidence right there. host: well, the republicans made the case that the money eventually came to them. caller: yeah, eventually. but that's beside the point. you cannot do that to start with. you can't wait until later on and say well, they did do it. that's like stealing a car. you say well, he stole the car but he did return it later on. host: republican line. we'll hear next from shirley in winter park, florida. hello? caller: yes. thank you. i listened to the impeachment trials quite a bit and i just want to say how much i appreciated patrick philbin's

discussion on constitutional law and the importance of due process. he went back into the history of the forefathers and explained why everything is in place as it is. and it made me think if we don't follow due process of the law for the president of the united states, what's to keep our government or the legal system from following due process if one of us is falsely accused? due process is extremely important. you can have all these swirling opinions all over the place, but if due process isn't followed in orderly fashion to the law, then justice, that's what makes us different. you know, innocent until proven guilty following due process. due process, we have to uphold. and that goes along with the constitution and how the house is supposed to investigate, take the time to investigate so that

the senate can quickly deliberate and not hold up the entire government. host: in several previous senate impeachment proceedings then, witnesses were called and many of those witnesses were called. why not put witnesses in the mix this time around? caller: yeah. host: because you even saw witnesses play out in the bill clinton impeachment as well. caller: and, you know, i would have to go back and look at that and look at the context to be able to answer that question. host: well, it happened previously, then why not now? i guess that's the simple question. caller: right. and i would have to go back and look at those trials. take a look at the context in which those witnesses were called to be able to answer your question. host: do you think ambassador bowes recent statements warrant maybe a discussion or at least a look at testimony from him? caller: well, again, ambassador bolton who i had a lot of respect for, i don't know what his motive is, and again, i think this should be done in the house, not in the senate.

that's what the house is designed to do. and i don't like the fact that representative schiff does that parity in congress which was totally false. i don't think that's appropriate at all. then to suggest in a trial that president trump is putting heads on a pike and he's saying i'm not sure if that's not true and then gets reviewed by senator conlin and he says i hope that's not true. well if you don't know that's not true -- i mean, you don't know it's true and you hope it's true, why would you say that? host: ok that's shirley in winter park, florida, calling on our republican line and finishing out this hour, talking about the senate impeachment. just to remind you one more time. 11:00 is when the closing arguments will start in the senate impeachment trial. c-span2 is where you can see that. also at c-span.org and our radio app. the rest of this program,

devoted to the iowa caucuses which takes place today and we'll have several guests joining us this morning. from des moines, iowa, to talk about the aspects of the caucuses. first up, we're going to hear from marc lotter and we'll talk to him about the president's perspective going into iowa and the start of this primary nominated conference -- process. later on, we'll be joined by "wall street journal"'s catherine lucey. she covered the 2016 iowa caucuses. we will give a compare and contrast of what happened then to what happened now. first though, we'll hear from veteran iowa political journalist. one of our q&a programs. he will talk about the >> the party organizes itself and conducts a lot of routine business, electing the committee members, central committee members, raising a little money, finding out who

is active. the early caucuses are important because they're breaking down starting to select delegates to the state, to the county convention. and this is where iowa becomes important because in the democratic process this is the first state in the country where people actually express a preference for presidential canned dates and elect people, dell cats to the county convention. that's the first time that sort of preference gets expressed. it's interesting, the term caucus is believed to be a native american term for that means a meeting of tribal leaders. and when the caucuses for many, many decades were organized i9 was exactly that a handful of people active in both parties who met in somebody's living room and talked about party business in the neighborhood and they were the leaders.

now it's morphed into saying where it really the whole tribe shows up in both parties to participate in these meetings. >> a year ago you told politico that you thought the floors were going to buckle in iowa because there was so much interest. now that we're just days away, what is the anticipation for how many people are going to participate and how does that compare? >> it may be the largest turnout ever on the democratic side. no one knows for sure the state chair has talked that it could be more than 200,000. i've heard the figure 300,000. i think there are -- it is really a victim of its own success that this repeated, important -- people in iowa have been told so many times how important they are they've come to actually believe it and they're participating and it's a great statewide exercise in civic education.

it attracts new people into the process, people who show up at caucuses and later run for office. i met the governor outside a precinct caucus in 1987. so it's an entry point for people to get involved, it raises some money although these events do cost a lot of money for the parties to stage. and it's just a great form of civic engagement that a lot of people are excited about. and given the passions that exist in american politics right now, that tends to draw turnout on both sides. particularly on the democratic side. this campaign really ramped up the day after the 2016 elections and democrats oh my democrats oh my god we've got to do something to stop trump. and it's been earlier and bigger than ever before. >> our show is based in des moines, iowa for the last couple of days and today as we've been talking to you about the iowa caucuses. that's a little bit of the view

of the skyline and surrounding area. we have a studio located directly in des moines and we've had several guests join us to talk about issues related to the caucuses. joining us now is mark from the trump 2020 campaign serves as their strategic communications director. good morning. >> good morning. >> we've been hearing about the democratic process play out but as far as specifically what happens for the president what is expectd in iowa today? >> well clearly the president will be renominated by the caucuses here in iowa. but what we're doing is kind of lifting the lid a little and giving folks a peak at the machine that we have built that's going to reelect president trump. we have 80 surrogates here including members of the president's family, cabinet secretaries, former cabinet secretaries as well as key campaign people. we're fanning out across the state today. we'll make sure that not only do folks get the message that the president wants to deliver

but they stay fired up. because the real fight is in november. >> we see the surrogates. we saw the president campaign in iowa. so what level of concern are you to possibly losing iowa? is and is that part of the strategy? >> there's absolutely no concern that we're going to lose iowa. this is more of a test run just testing our systems making sure that we're not going to make the mistake that the clinton pa made during 2016. we're going to be in the states we need to be in. you saw the energy when the president held a rally here. the vice president did a bus tour across the state. and when i look at what i see happening on the other side president trump had longer lines for the concession stand than most democrats do at their main event. so there's no question that iowa is going to be firmly in president trump's column in november. >> speaking of doll lums, it's york who wrote a recent column about the president's efforts. given his success in the 2016 race it's easy to forget that he started out to losing to ted

cruz. he wants to make up for that. more importantly he wants to cement support plus take advantage of the increased intensity among support of republicans who believes the president has been treated unfairly by democrats in washington. >> i think he says it very well. again, this is really more of a test for our facility and for our capabilities here in iowa. it's a great opportunity for us to remind the democrats and the democrat party that i understand the focus is on you right now, it doesn't matter who comes out of your primary, you're going to have to get in the ring and face donald trump with this campaign. i think this is just a sneak peak at what they can expect here in the coming months. >> if it's either bernie sanders or joe biden, what happens? >> i missed part of that. >> when it comes to that if joe biden or bernie sanders wins when it coments to your strategy what should we expect?

>> well, i don't think it's going to matter which one of their candidates comes out of their primary process because most of them have endorsed the same horrible flawed policy that is the president is going to be running against, whether it is raising taxes, whether it is reimplementing the regulations that have stifled job growth as opposed to cutting taxes deregulation that has hit this economy on its full stride. when you look here in iowa what the president has done renegotiating the horrible nafta deal, signing the phase one china deal, thoys are very important to farmers, to ranchers. those are things that we can celebrate and we're going to be celebrating. meanwhile democrats are talking about taking that progress away. >> our guest with us until 8:30. you can ask questions.

when it comes to impeachment if i'm object fence about voting for donald trump or maybe considering voting for the first time how does impeachment impact and what's the message to those people who might be making those conversations? >> well, what we have seen is that this impeachment witch hunt has actually unified many in the republican party and has brought many new people into the party who might have been on the fence before because they saw the fundamental unfairness of the way this process was being played out. so what we have seen in just the last few months we've seen over 600,000 people reach out to the rnc, reach out to our volunteer, to unteer, to donate. we've had fund raising that has set new records both with our campaign, our joint committees and with the republican national committee. it has really brought a lot of people together. then when you add that to the success that we have seen under this president, i think a lot of people see the democrats as opposed to focusing on thing

that is matter they've actually just focused on these impeachments, the investigation. and the president is working for them. >> we saw iowa's own republican senator plus tennessee republican senator question the call. is that a problem for your campaign? >> no. i don't think so. obviously i have great respect for both senators and they're voicing their thoughts. i think it is also very important to remember that what we are actually talking about here is not about the 2020 election. we're talking about the appearance of improprietary, the appearance of unethical behavior by the bidens while he was sitting vice president and leading america's foreign policy in ukraine. i think it is absolutely appropriate that the president looks to see what happened there to make sure that the corruption in that country is being addressed. and as we've all seen the fundamental facts of this case has not changed. the transcript shows no quid

pro quo the ukrainians felt no pressure. the aid was released. and despite what the democrats talk about none has changed. >> but it is those republicans that questioned the appropriateness of the phone call itself. what do you think or how much do you agree or disagree? >> well, i believe what the president was doing was sticking up for american interests and making sure ukraine was fighting corruption in that country which is what it was known for for a very long period of time. i understand that those senators and many otherless have different takes. it's not unusual for a senator and congress people to have varying views on differences but both of them rightfully realize that this sham needs to stop. this is not going to rise to an impeachable offense, that this was the first partisan impeachment of a president in modern history. and we need to move on and get back to doing the work of the american people. >> mark lotter with the

president's campaign and soifers as the strategic communications director. we have calls lined up. our first on our independent line from texas. caller: i would like to ask a question. the phone calls makes a difference. what about when trump put a hit out on the ambassador over there? it's proven by the testimony of the trial where they had to call over there and hurry up and get away. and one got acid thrown in her face and she died. and then they asked on fox news trump a question about why he wanted her out and then he responded saying because he didn't want to put his picture up. so that could be used.

if it makes you mad because you want them to do something. guest: well, i think ultimately we've got to remember that the ambassadors of the united states serve at the pleasure of the united states. there was multiple information coming in that the former ambassador to the ukraine was not supportive of the president's policies in general and so the president made a change which is well within his rights to do it. as it comes to other attacks that we have seen this president has been very strong in making sure that our personnel, our ambassadors overseas are protected. that's one of the reasons why you saw such a strong response by the president, by the united states when our embassy in iraq was under attack and the president took action to defend it. host: from our republican line we'll hear from california. i just want to say that

trump is doing a great job and he protects citizens of the united states. as far as anything he's not done anything wrong but protect us. what about obama and hillary in benghazi? he was going to blow the whistle sending guns on the cartel but nobody talks about that. they should be in prison both of them. leave trump alone and god bless america and god bless trump. host: steve detroit michigan democrats line. caller: i was calling concerning the republicans saying that democrats are not doing their job. they're doing their job. when they go and vote on different things it's not being -- they go to mr. mcconnell's desk. host: you're on with our guest

with the president's campaign. caller: i just want to i thought fairness would be that they listen to both sides. in the past they did have what was witnesses. host: ok. when it comes to the other two candidates in the race, we have a viewer here this is off of twitter saying i'm voting for governor weld in the republican primary. to what degree of concern do those two pose? guest: there's absolutely no concern. in fact they're barely operating campaigns. but that's how america works. in this case, obviously in some cases some states will have a primary where the republicans can choose. the one thing i think is absolutely important is this is a president who has near historically high approval ratings within the republican

party. i've seen it anywhere from the mid 90s percentage so there's no question that republicans are going to renominate the president and vice president. but it is also the american system that if someone wants to throw their name in the ring and they can qualify for the ballot then they can make their case. but i think it's pretty obvious that this is going to be a very lopsided affair with on the republican side for the president. host: we've seen several polls matching the president with various candidates almost in a head to head situation. when you look at those polls what do you interpret? guest: absolutely nothing. we haven't even begun this campaign against a specific candidate. they don't have a specific candidate. i often joke when i'm giving speeches that having these pothetical matchup polls are about informative as polling vegetarians about their favorite cut of steak. once they have a candidate we'll engage and the race will be on. host: one of the questions is

whether a more progressive candidate will emerge versus a moderate. what do you think about at least on that side that's going on within the democratic party itself? guest: well, i don't believe there's any moderate lane in the democratic party and none of the candidates are moderates. you sit there and look at joe biden who had been in elected office for over 50 years. he has long supported the hide amendment which banned taxpayer funding for abortion. but as soon as he threw his hat in the ring this time around he had to flip-flop on that very issue. so he now supports taxpayer funded abortion. he raised his hand like everybody else on the stage and said that taxpayers should be paying for health care for illegal immigrants. that's not something that barack obama said when he was president. it shows you how far to the radical left that this party has gone. so it doesn't matter which one of them come out. they're going to have to endorse these very progressive, very radical policies that the

democrat party especially their base is expecting from them. and so i think they're drifting that way. it will be a question of how far. broverages, new york. caller: good morning. i've been listening for quite some time. i appreciate the feedback and your input. but i do want to just sort of push back a little bit against the progressive nature of the democratic candidates. as a registered democrat i believe that sure we should bolster other democrats up and listen to their ideologies and policies and really try to reason with them. then you have the more radical soirblist democratics such as ernie sanders, so you have the situations where you have the radicals, you have the democratic socialists which are

not mutually inclusive. they're mutually exclusive. it's not necessary for a democratic to be a radical socialist and it's not necessary for a radical socialist to be a democrat. you can be radical and have fun good luck but you can run for being a progressive democratic socialist and republicans and conservetives are not going to like that. that is ok. that is this nation. but i heard a couple callers ago -- >> host: you're on directly with our guest so if you would address a question or comment to him. caller: i greatly appreciate thank you very much. so my question to you yourself is do you believe do you personally believe that the president of the united states of america is in the right for communicating with a foreign leader regarding our electoral process?

host: again don't address them to me. address them to our guest. you can address anything you picked up or what he said just now. guest: well i'll take both and go with the last one first. i absolutely do think it's appropriate. the actions that were alleged were unethical behavior that even raised up the red flags in the obama state department, the obama white house about the appearance for improprietary with hunter biden and joe biden's dealings. they are absolutely appropriate for the president to look into that. it does not matter and if we ever get to a point in our country where running for office will shield you from scrutiny that's a very dangerous part this is about what vice president biden did while he was in office regardless of whether he as candidate. and when it comes to the progressive socialism argument, when i travel the country speaking on behalf of the president and this campaign iffle people tell me they're

formerly democrats might still consider themselves democrats, their parents have been democrats and they don't recognize the democrat party any more. and i think you see that. where you see a number of black americans and latino and his panic americans, labor union members coming out in support of this president because the policies are working. and i think we're seeing more and more of those people who are realizing that they can succeed. their communities, their neighborhoods, their families can succeed under this president and what the democrats have been offering is nothing but lip service. ost: cindy from minnesota. san ll try robert in ose, california. caller: i think the greatest

thing to come out of this whole thing that's going on now and i think it will show in the choosing of the caucuses that took place is with the harassing and hah ranging and the hamstringing of the president in future with this -- the way this impeachment thing has gone on and trying to as speaker pelosi said to brand the president. he's branded from here on. is the fact that any presidents of future stripe will be -- they won't even have to be a threat an open threat of impeaching of taking out of office right away. it will just demass clate what

e president -- the president of the country can feel free to do. there will always be that threat of the gun pointed at you from hidden in the closet as it were. host: ok. thanks, caller. caller: well, i share a lot of the concerns that i think i was picking up from the caller there. this impeachment proceeding i think is going to have very negative impacts on future presidents and the future of our country. when you get into partisan one-party impeachment that's bad for our country. it's something that hamilton warned us against and the reason why you saw no other impeachment in the history of our country was done strictly on a one party basis. i'm equally concerned the fact that the democrats in congress are trying to basically break the executive privilege which

has been enjoyed by every privilege going back to george washington. if we ever get to a point in our country where this president, a future president cannot have a robust policy debate discussion, even disagreement with their national security adviser or their chief of staff or any of their senior advisers because they're afraid they're going to get hauled before congress and forced to talk about that disagreement, then our presidents are never going to get any kind of information except what they want to hear or yes people and that will lead to bad policy decisions in the future. host: as your role for the campaign have you had any acts about the state of the union and what the president will do as far as what he presents? guest: i've seen discussions that have already taken place. the president is going to take thedays tomorrow night and talk about the great american comeback, talk about the great things going on in our country. i'm here where 22,000 jobs have

been created since the president took office including 15 thourblings manufacturing jobs. and it wasn't that long ago that barack obama and joe biden were talking about needing a magic wand to bring those jobs back. and the president has proved otherwise. he is going to talk about making it easier for families to get health care, to take care of children while they work. some of the very important work that's going on in the white house. hoping that congress is going to work with him. but right now obviously it doesn't look like they're going to be working with him on anything, at least for the foreseeable future. host: do you know if impeachment will come up? guest: i don't want to get ahead of what the president may or may not say. i know he will talk about the accomplishments, his vision. it's going to be a very optimistic speech. i'm looking forward to seeing it tomorrow night. host: one more question. because of the information that came out about john bolton himself, do you think that warrants some type of investigation about the claims made in his book?

guest: i wouldn't say -- i'm not going to say about investigations. i think there could be investigations in terms of how information which has been at least initially ruled as potentially classified and even top secret has been leaked to media outlets. that's something that definitely needs to be looked at. but what it comes to what the president is saying, again these are robust policy discussions, they're areas where the senior staff the experts in the field can come in, talk openly with the leader, the elected leader, but ultimately the elected leader's decision to make -- it's not the staff decision to make. if we ever get to that time where they can't give honest opinions we're going to do a disservice to future presidents. host: from arkansas, mike. caller: the impeachment ommittee impeefed him and they can they go back and reimpeach

him again? and then call all the witnesses they want to? they've impeached him on such little charges. they may need to impeach him and find the crime. guest: i'm not a constitutional law expert but from what it sounds like there are a number of democrats who are saying already that they are not done impeaching this president and they expect to continue to impeach him because really that's the only message they have. you've got democrats who have been out there since the day the president was elected talking about impeaching him and looking for a reason to do so. they've taken us down this road from the fake russia collusion now to ukraine. what is next for them? they know they're not going to win at the ballot box and i think the only thing they're trying to do is remove him from office because they know they can't defeat him in november. host: by the way that view of des moines, iowa that you're enjoying is courtesy of

available studio from downtown there. we want to thank them from hosting us and giving us access that shows des moines, iowa. our guest is mark lotter communications director. he previously served as a special assistant to the president and vice president. there's a viewer this morning off of twitter. saying can the guest guarantee with 100% certainty that the vice president will be on the ballot with the president? isn't the president planning to replace mr. pence? guest: no absolutely not. the president has addressed this a number of times not just right after the 2018 midterm elections. he's been asked that question multiple times. the president and the vice president make a great team. the vice president is the greatest champion of the president that there is. and probably one of the strongest voices next to the president himself. and when you look at my pin and our materials it clearly says

trump/pence 2020. host: ken is up next. caller: the first i'm confused why you said this is a great american comeback when obama took over i think the stock market was a little below 5,000 and when he left it was at 20,000. that's the american comeback. the tax code, two questions about the taxes. do you think that trump if elected will rehaul the tax code again? because middle america has been hurt by what he did. i used to have a refund and now have to pay. and i hear that across the line from a lot of people. and also as far as paying the thing that is you took out itemization as far as you can only pay a certain amount as far as interest off of your house, that's completely been capped. the last thing. will donald trump release his

tax returns before the election? it's been three years and it's been under audit which is not true. something he is hiding something. will he release his tax returns? thank you. guest: well the first thing i would do is strongly disagree with your caller's assertion that middle class is not benefiting. that has been debunked. all the data shows middle america was benefiting whether lowering the tax rates but doubling the child tax credit. the average tax cut was about 14 to 180 depending on where ou live -- 1400 to 1800. that's a very misleading statistic. we lowered the withholding rates because of the lower taxes. and so that could adjust the size of your refund. but your refund -- the amount of tax that you pay, it was the amount of money that the government held out. and so people shouldn't judge their tax cuts based on the

size of their refund. when it comes to the president's return that is something he will make. it's not required by law. the fact that the president as a candidate and as president has to file an annual financial disclosure form which are much more detailed, much more thorough than the tax return. so anyone that wants to know more about that can look at those. those are on line, since the president ran for election. host: new hampshire is after iowa in the sights of the president as far as the visit and campaigning there? guest: i believe the president is heading there shortly. the second lady is going to be there this week. i'm heading there toward the end of the week myself. we're going to continue to fight for new hampshire. that's one of those states where we have definitely put a lot of resources because we only lost that state by a very slim margin in 2016. it is a state that i believe is absolutely going to flip and go for the president in 2020 along

with minnesota. those are two of our targets that we have many but i will have a very big influence -- we will have a big influence in new hampshire leading up to the general election. host: host: thank you for your time this morning, sir. guest: thank you very much. host: coming up, more guests to talk about the caucuses. we will be joined by "wall street journal" white house reporter who covers the 2020 caucus for the associated press. program, drake university professor. we will be right back.

the democratic presidential campaign -- candidates have come campaigned throughout -- have campaigned throughout iowa. watch live coverage of the iowa caucuses today at 7:30 p.m. eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org, or listen live on the c-span radio app. >> sister called around. >> mr. geomet. >> mr. chairman, there are 23 eyes, 17 knows. >> punches pilot afforded more

rights to jesus. crimes areident's not impeachable. >> you just don't like the guy. we will make it very clear this president will be held accountable -- no one is above the law. >> the question is whether senator mcconnell will allow a fair trial in the senate. mcconnell: the senate's time is at hand. willor schumer: each of us face a choice to begin the trial in the search of truth, or in service of the president's desire to cover up. >> do solemnly swear that in all things pertaining to the impeachment of donald john trump , president of the united states, now pending, you will do law, the interest of the

so help you guide. >> there was a desire to see him removed. >> the each meant up president trump. watch unfiltered coverage on c-span2 live with same-day reair s. listen on the go using the free c-span radio app. president trump: victory is not winning for our party. victor is winning for our country. >> president trump delivers his state of the union address from the house chamber live tuesday at 8:00 p.m. eastern, followed by the democratic response. ,ive coverage on c-span on-demand at c-span.org, or listen on the free c-span radio

app. season,g this election the candidates beyond the talking points are only revealed over time, but since you cannot be everywhere, there is c-span. our campaign 2020 programming differs from all of her political -- all other political coverage for one simple reason -- it is c-span. we have brought you your unfiltered view of government every day since 1979. future. words, your deep,lection season, go direct, and unfiltered. see the biggest picture for yourself, and make up your own campaign c-span's 2020, brought to as a public service by your television provider. host: if you are a regular c-span viewer you know that

every four years our roads end up to des moines, iowa, for coverage of the iowa caucuses, which take place tonight. you can watch the results of that on c-spanplus. all that information on our website at c-span.org. guests joining us throughout the morning, including catherine lucey, "wall white houseal's" reporter. you covered the caucuses in 2016. can you compare and contrast what you covered back and to now? guest: i was there four years ago. isin different this time most of the action is on the democratic side. we have a fluid, competitive democratic primary and an incumbent republican president. yes -- last time there were competitive races on both sides,

but there was a more competitive yield on the republican side. there are similarities there. this time there is a different feeling among democrats going into this race. it is a real sense of urgency about how they can defeat this president. there is anxiety about getting this decision right. one thing i have heard from a caucuses isratic people are still making decisions in their final hours -- the caucuses are at 7:00 p.m. tonight. it is a single event where you're going and make this choice and a lot of people have been coming right down to the wire on who to pick. they are motivated on who you think could be the president, but very undecided on what type of candidate can do that. as you see from the candidates crisscrossing the state right now, they are offering different ideas about what is the right solution. you have bernie sanders and elizabeth warren offering more

progressive outlooks. sanders, who is surging in these last days, is arguing the best way to do this is bring new people into the party, growth the electorate. then you have more moderate candidates like joe biden and amy klobuchar who argue the best way to take on the president's to appeal to midwestern voters who may be felt left behind in the last race. you are seeing an interesting clash of ideas among democrats and a lot of uncertainty and anxiety about the voters that have to go that from the voters that have to go first. --from the voters that have to go first. host: there is a line in "wall street journal" can you expand on that? it is a real clash of what the prescription is here -- what is the best way for this party to move forward? we saw some of this with republicans last time -- a real

divide on what type of candidates and what type of policy approach was the party going to take. you are seeing this sort of play out with voters around the state. people often like both ideas, but aren't really sure. the thing they come back to a lot is which one is the best idea to beat trump. at the end of the day, beating president trump is the biggest motivating factor for a lot of people. host: what you think about -- i will color for a lack of a better term in fighting amongst democrats themselves. what does it mean for the average iowa motor who is still considering, like you talked about? in the final days things get very complicated, and i think as the race gets to a close, there are concerns from different camps. are they being treated fairly? are they getting covered fairly? are they getting a fair shake from their party apparatus.

whether it is supporters of bernie sanders, who felt they were not giving the treatment that project -- they should've gotten in 2016, there will always be some of that. caucus goers are thoughtful and sophisticated voters who tend to be active in the party, actively engaged. because it is i will come they often will have seen -- iowa, they often will have seen all if not some, if not all of the candidates. make voters are trying to a decision. questions,o ask them talk about the economy, jobs, trade. that is what the voters who will caucus are going to think about in the final moments. host: if you want to ask out guest questions, host: iowa voters and i love residents, if you want to call

and give your thoughts you can do so at , how didherine lucey you react to the decision about not to release the final "des moines register" hole, and -- and whatd -- poll, does it mean for the candidates? ,uest: it is a significant poll considered a gold standard, and caucuses are traditionally very , because they do not work like a traditional primary. there are several rounds of voting. there is a realignment process. poll.ay very high quality the folks, the register, and cnn could not move forward once there was information with at least one instancing of questioning was handled and a candidates name was left out.

they had to make the decision. i think what it means for this final day is we are entering it with no more clarity. usually that gives you some sense of who has the momentum. it is not necessarily always finalwhat -- with the results, but it gives you a sense of who is on the rise, who has caught fire the last few days and it has helped a little to signal that. did not happen, you are entering this with a situation where you still have four candidates vying to come out on this -- come out of this on top. it is considered fluid. , becauseo a situation of the way the party is counting the results, and you have talked about this before on the show -- they will be releasing more information this time about the caucus results. in previous years you just learned who was the final winner in terms of delicate. this time they will release information also around a couple

of metrics. one in particular is the first round of voting. we will know who wins the first round. the way it works if there is an initial round. any candidate -- in most locations, if they don't have 15% of the room, their supporters have to realign to a different candidate. the initial one is, kind of, like a popular vote, and then you have a realignment trying to get to is viable and figuring out the delegates. that means you will hear more about who is winning these different points of the voting, and that could also prove interesting as we figure out who has momentum going into new hampshire. host: catherine lucey joining us. serves as a white house reporter. cover the iowa caucuses in 2016. our first call is from david in hickory, north carolina, line four democrats. you are on with our guest. go ahead. caller: good morning.

i was wanting to know if you heard any talk or have seen any response to the impeachment, how that was going to make democratic voters be more -- become more involved, and whether republicans are thinking about switching, too. guest: thanks so much. we have been talking to people about impeachment on both sides of the aisle. my sense is that for a lot of people it is not necessarily changing minds. i think our political views on both sides of the aisle are dug in at this point. people who support the president feel that process needed to end and it not think it was fair. president opposed the are frustrated the trial did not go on or longer and think there was a lot of reason for him to be impeached in the house. i do not know that it was changing people's mind. for a lot of people, impeachment has only served to drive enthusiasm and activism going

into 2020 on both sides of the aisle. i think people feel more motivated, perhaps, because of the. -- because of this. host: glenn is joining us from california. republican line. guest: good morning, pedro. good morning, lucy. i get all 99% of my information from c-span. i would like to talk about election interference in the 2016 election. you guys have so much power. why don't i hear from you about a thing where they used 17 agencies of our government before a president was a lot it -- elected. -- donaldrump./, at as a private citizen,

as schumer would say, six ways you,nday to get after cooking up a false narrative about a russian collusion and going after american citizens and election interference in crossfire hurricane. host: ok, we will leave it there. you can address that in your white house capacity, catherine lucey, if you want. guest: thanks very much for the question. i think there is a lot of concern going into 2020 about the election being -- about there being election interference, about the elections being fair. that is a concern in iowa as well, but that this is a result that is clearly the result of voters. one of the good things about i'll is this is a bit -- iowa is this is a very hands-on, organic process. people go to local sites, meet with neighbors, talk about

policy issues. i think that is an instant piece of american democracy. host: one more question from your white house perspective -- with the state of the union on tuesday, a final vote, if acquitted, wednesday -- as the white house explained what happens the on wednesday? guest: the white house has made very clear, and they -- i think we will see some of this in the state of the union tomorrow -- they want to move forward. it was to talk about the things the president has been working on in recent months and he had a number of key policy victories, with the signing of the usmca, tradefta trade deal, the one deal with china -- i think you will hear him talk about those deals tomorrow in the state of the union and has plans to move forward. i think you will continue to hear him on the campaign trail, talking about impeachment,

casting him -- casting it about democrats trying to unseat him, but the white house has made it clear they see this as an opportunity to move forward. host: columbia, south carolina. b is next. caller: thank you for taking my call. my comment is kind of a two -part. one is people think that voters are going to vote for somebody of this country based on who can beat donald trump. i, as a voter, vote for a vision for the future on who can run this country, and who can do the best job. i have always done that. i have always looked at the candidates and thought "who can do the best job for this country?" that is what this is about. who would vote for somebody just based on the fact that he could be donald trump or she could beat donald trump? also, i don't like, like when

people think people are going to switch parties because of the, .nd a joke of a trial i don't think anyone would base their vote on this page been trial at all. not a patriotic person. host: let our guests respond. guest: thank you for calling. i do think people -- when you talk to voters in i will, democrats around the state, they care deeply about who can do the best job, candidate plans on health care, the economy, education, and part of that is who can get to the white house and an act those plans -- enact those plans. if you are someone designing between a number on -- deciding from the number of democrats and you like what you hear, this

issue of electability and strength in a general election factors into the decision. and think -- i think both wings can be true. -- both things can be true. host: the front page of the paper show the various candidates doing retail politicking. factor that in, particularly influenced the billing our candidates are having on the race, michael bloomberg and tom steyer. the candidates have all been in iowa over the weekend. tonight, we will see you have a number of senators who have not been able to be here because of the impeachment process. senator amy klobuchar has staked a lot of her candidacy on iowa, making a big effort here, hoping to surprise people tonight. she has not been able to be in the state as much as she would like, and the same for bernie

sanders and elizabeth warren. we have seen them trying to play catch-up over the weekend as they had some time away from washington, but had to go back today. those are some of the dynamics playing out. in terms of the billionaire candidates, michael bloomberg has focused his energies on a super-tuesday strategy. he is not directly working here in iowa. obviously anyone who is spending that kind of money is going to influence the race. the question with bloomberg that we do not know the answer to yet is what that kind of money does. we have not seen anything like that before. i think we are going to see how that plays out. another piece of that is just how quickly democrats unite behind a candidate. i think that is another thing -- there are a lot of unanswered questions as to whether iowa and the fieldire will win

and how the bloomberg money and some influence will raise that up. host: a sars the white house is concerned, which candidate are as farying the most -- as the white house is concerned, which candidate are they paying attention to the most? guest: they are using this moment to send data show that campaign strength. they want to make a point about -- to show how much campaign strength they have here. they want to make a point about showing their political apparatus. the president has been critical of joe biden, pete buttigieg, elizabeth warren, bernie sanders. there are different people who they have different concerns about. you can play some of those things out. joe biden, for example, could have a lot of strength in key midwestern states the president

slipped from democrat to republican last time. bernie sanders has the ability to expand the electorate in some ways people have not seen before. they are watching closely, but remain confident that the fund raising, the organization, the campaign may have this time, which is so different than the organization they had in iowa last time, is going to be very powerful in a general election. host: from washington state, democrats line. we are joined by denise. caller: good morning. i would like to make first a state, and then maybe a question, if that is ok. host: you are on. go ahead. caller: my comment is the difference between nixon and clinton are that this president has caused deaths by hate speech twittering out

they evena before start doing the pullback of the soldiers. people died. let's talk about kurdistan. host: you brought up those three, but we are talking about iowa today. what would you like to address to the guest? caller: i told the person -- i do not know. i am sorry. host: we're talking about the caucuses -- that is why we have our guest on. if you want to address a question there, you can. well, who do you think is going to win national and -- caller: well, would he think is going to win? host: ok, we can start there. caller: guest: that is the 1 -- guest: that is the one million-dollar question. i do not think anyone knows who is going to win in the next few hours. it has been a fluid race. you have four candidates bunched

up atop of the polls. one of the things with iowa voters that you hear a lot is they tend to break late. i talked to people over the weekend who are still deciding what they are going to do. when you add and it is a withicated voting process the caucuses, which is not like a traditional primary, that can make it harder to read. again, as we spoke about earlier in the show, the fact that this is the last major poll we are supposed to see on saturday that released, means we are really entering in a very, very fluid straight. i do think anyone that state. --o not think anyone asked fluid state. i do not think anyone asks this early in the morning would really know. host: a real clear politics shows sanders i had by four. isst: undoubtedly, sanders

searching. he is surging at the right time. another thing to note, this is the second time he is doing this. he was competitive in 2016 where hillary clinton won by a very small margin and he has retained a lot of that support. in the closing days of the race he has clearly pulled in more support. he had a huge event over the weekend with thousands of people. big-namelot of surrogates out here. he undoubtedly is having a big stretch of momentum going into this. that said, it is very hard to predict the final caucus results because it is a complicated process. host: from all democrats line, in ohio, dayton, jeff, go ahead. caller: hello. guest: hi. caller: i would just like to say

that the polls and iowa have been number one forever. you cannot really say they are not good. then with the trouble with the aoll, why don't they haveroboc calls ask these questions so people are not keeping out people's names? thank you. guest: i would say i think the iowa poll is an excellent poll, a very well regarded poll, but i was is a tricky state to poll. we also saw in 2016 more broadly that polling in this climate is getting harder and harder to do, not just in iowa. we have to be careful when we ing in what we

read in it. i cannot speak to how the iowa poll is conducted. i can say it is a highly regarded poll, a serious methodology, and they probably had to make a call they could not put it out because of serious concerns. host: this is mark stone off of newser -- why is all the coverage in the call -- coverage on the caucuses. in a real election, you cannot change your vote. why doesn't iowa just have a primary vote? thet: this gets into a caucus, -- iowa has and new hampshire as the first primary. it is not supposed to be a primary. it is a party gathering. meeting.ommunity people meet at churches,

schools, sometimes in private homes, and while they do pass these ballots, they also discuss things like party rules and other things to do with individual parties. it is a party organizing meeting in a lot of ways. standingay the long defense and argument in favor of the way iowa does things is that it is not necessarily intended to have the results of a primary or be the final word on this. it is meant to be the starting word -- it is meant to narrow the field, to signal who has momentum. the last quadrant democratic winners of this caucus went on to -- four democratic winners of this caucus went on to win the democratic nomination. they have a track record of seeing who is on the rise. , do youtherine lucey get a sense of who might drop out after iowa? guest: that is so tricky.

usually -- it is such a big field. we saw on the republican side last time, usually with a big field and depending on the results tonight you will see some people out, but some of the lower polling candidates have made clear they do not expect to go anywhere and you have new hampshire coming up short time. it is possible a lot of them stick around through new hampshire, but one of the things that will happen is at some point it gets harder to raise the money if you're not doing well in these contests and you're going to see some people moving out. host: from your current job as a reporter of the white house to your previous job as a reporter of the caucuses, what are you paying attention to tonight? guest: i am looking really closely tonight -- there are two things we are watching. one is how well sanders performs. is this momentum real? does he win tonight? the other key thing we are watching is how joe biden is going to perform.

he has been in the state. he has been trying to manage expectations about his performance here and there have been questions about his organization and enthusiasm, but he also remains a leader in national polls. i think a key question is how well he can perform and what that says about his candidacy going into new hampshire, nevada, and south carolina. host: joining us from des moines is catherine lucey, who previously covered the caucuses for the associated press on both fronts. the white for your time today. guest: thank you so much. will continue talking to guests from des moines, iowa, as part of our caucus coverage. we will talk with drake university professor and i will present us jennifer glover konfrst. later in the program, reporter -tv dave price.

♪ here >> mr. geomet. >> my vote is no. >> the article is agreed to. speaker pelosi: article one is adopted. >> the president's crimes are in teachable. >> because you just don't like the guy. you did not like him since november, 2016. speaker pelosi: we will make it very clear this president will be held accountable. no one is above the law. >> the question is whether senator mcconnell allowing their trial in the senate.

senator mcconnell: the house's hour is over. schumer: each of us faces the decision of whether we pursue the truth or serve the president's desire to cover up. >> you will do impartial justice due to the constitution and laws so help you god. >> is the president was sworn into office, there was a desire to see him removed. >> the impeachment of president trump -- watch unfiltered coverage of the senate trial on reair2 live with same-day . demand and listen on the go using the free c-span radio app.

president trump: victory is not winning for our party. victory is winning for our country. [applause] delivers histrump state of the union address from the house chamber live tuesday day to cut p.m. eastern followed by the democratic response with michigan governor gretchen -- and patches representative veronica escobar -- texas representative veronica escobar. >> during this election season, the candidates beyond the talking points are only revealed over time, but since you cannot be everywhere, there is c-span. our campaign 2020 programming differs from all other political coverage for one simple reason -- it is c-span.

your unfiltered view of government every day since 1979 and this year we are bringing you an unfiltered view of the people seeking to steer that coverage this november -- in other words, your future. this election season, go deep, direct, and unfiltered. see the biggest picture for yourself, and make up your own mind with c-span's campaign 2020, brought to you as a public service by a television provider. iowa,this is des moines, and as we have been showing you all morning, overhead shots of the city. one of many cities and towns across iowa that tonight will participate in the first voting primary decision process in the iowa caucuses. watch for c-span's coverage on our website and -- on our website at c-span.org. and watch the results at about nine: early this evening.

guests have been joined -- 9:30 this evening. guests have joined us all morning long. next guest is from drake university. jennifer glover konfrst thank you and welcome to c-span. guest: thank you for having me. professor, and also serve as a state representative. guest: i work with a lot of students who work in the caucuses. they are on primary campaigns, covering the caucuses in our journalism school. it is so fun to watch them experience that. as a state representative in the party that is currently the more active caucus campaign right now, i have been hearing from a lot of candidates and working with candidates over the course of the last year who want to make you have surrogates and folks who are helping to advance their cause. i have been seen both sides of the campaign in a new way this time. host: as far as the candidates

themselves, and you yourself support a candidate or caucused for them? guest: yes. i originally endorsed senator booker and followed him around as a surrogate. when he with from the race, i took a week to mourn, and then jump back in and endorsed senator warren. host: because you teach political communication, talk about the communication of the candidates themselves -- not only what they are saying to their audiences, but what they are saying about each other and what does that mean for the person in iowa who has to make the decision tonight. this: iowans take seriously and people want to meet them 1, 2, 3 times. they want to meet everyone that is running for president. that is not just a stereotype. they are listening to what the candidates are saying directly about issues affecting us as ireland that might be trade

policy, national issues. the way they are communicating with iowans, several ways -- diners, walking around coffee shops, shaking hands, rallies and events, and of course media. my mailbox is full every day with mailers from all the different campaigns in the television and broadcast media " des moines register" and on tv. they are trying to reduce everywhere they are in any way -- everywhere we are in any way they can. host: this year's caucuses have several changes with reporting. talk about those changes and what does it mean ultimately for deciding who won the caucuses? guest: i wish i knew. there are three different ways. they will report state delegate

equipment, the first alignment, then the final amendment, so you will see how the caucuses move around the room that night. it is when you tell quite a story, but that story is not going to be the kind that is easily told at 8:30 tonight. we will have an initial story of who won, who got the most delegates, and then someone andd deep -- dig in deeper say isn't it interesting to know -- at least for nerds like me -- isn't it seemed to know that they shifted. momentum, story about alliances that might be building between campaigns as some campaigns are viable and some are not. it will be an evolving story. we will have a winner tonight, i hope, a ranking, and that is what you will report before you move on to lovely new hampshire. at the end of the day, the numbers you get will be telling

about organization and momentum. host: i spoke with the communication person, someone may not necessarily win, but declare themselves a winner based on how they fell in those categories. guest: absolutely. if they say we were able to bring people over in misalignment, that tells the story of how strong we are. i remember in thousand eight when we were caucusing and -- in 2008 when we were caucusing, a person came up to me and asked specific questions about my health care plan and why it was better. we have to be able to persuade people. if campaigns have good organization in the room, they can help to build the final alignment number. there is winning in communications and messaging versus the expectations game. if you have been trending and surging or dropping in different

ways to manage the narrative to come out of the caucasus and the campaign. host: jennifer glover konfrst is joining us, an. associate professor and drink university and a state representative. if you want to ask her questions about the iowa caucuses iowa if you are an resident, give us a call at host: professor, our previous guest talked about it and i think i have seen as much as 40% at this point still not decided on who they will caucus for. what does that number tell you? it tells me -- the obvious is that the race is wide open come but the other thing is iowans have a lot of people they are choosing from. i hear from people who say they are choosing between two or three. they will choose tonight. iowans take this seriously.

it tells me not that people do not have enthusiasm for the candidates, but they have enthusiasm for more than one. when they walk in the door they will see who is viable, who is not, who shall i go with? last night there was a super bowl party and that someone was leaving they said i have to decide tomorrow? i said yes, two-state is not work. host: this is from akron, ohio, rick line for democrats. caller: good morning, sir. good morning, jennifer. ae question i have is more of feeling. this feels like you have a big, ring, and people are trying to decide who is the bull.erson to slay the

democrats seem to have gotten it wrong nominating clinton, and they were not able to beat trump. what is the feeling of desperation amongst democrats? that is all i need to know. thank you. guest: two or for the question. it is definitely top of every democrat's mind, beating donald trump. it is how they define that is the question. everyone says so and so is most electable. people are looking at past races saying were we to carefully 2016 or 2004 -- were democrats too cautious or should we take a bold step or should we be careful? s are pretending to be pundits. my statement continues to be we do not know what is electedable anymore. i think islands, if you go back

to the end of the day, it will come down to your heart. what does your heart say and who do you think of someone you can stand behind? what i'm hearing over and over again is we will be behind whatever the nominee is. into the as an might change, but ns-iowa see -- i went clx ability, and what is electable -- and there is a lot of debate over that. ont: hillary clinton won their democratic side, and ted cruz on the democratic side in 2016. is this a constant -- conflict between progressive teams versus push back from amy klobuchar and people are judged, or is it more -- pete buttigieg, or is it more ? guest: i'm hearing -- nuanced? peoplei'm hearing from

who are choosing who are choosing between buttigieg and warren, or biden and warren, or sanders and clothes chart. the pairing -- klobuchar. the parents do not make sense ideologically, but when you go back to the gut feeling of who do i think is asked to take on donald trump, -- best to take on donald trump, they look at broad strokes. the reasons people have for choosing those are very different. that is not to say there is not a progressive push and a moderate push. i'm fascinated right now -- all of these undecideds seem to be choosing between different halves of ideologies. there is not a clear this war that out there. it is, kind of, muddled. this or that out there. it is, kind of, muddled. host: from new york.

good morning. whatr: i would like to ask the professor what she is a yearssor of, and how many and how long have these caucuses been going on like this in iowa? how far back does the history go on these caucuses, and have they changed over the years much? that is all i have to say. two or. -- thank you. guest: absolutely. i love to talk about this. i teach political communication in our journalism school and i teach applicants, democrats, and no parties -- republicans, democrats, and no parties how did you indicate in the political sphere. in terms of the caucasus, the first time they became relevant was 1976 when jimmy carter decided he wanted to raise his profile by putting a small

caucus state in the middle of the country and he came in second that year behind uncommitted, but by running the kind of iowa caucus campaign you see now he raised his profile and went on to win the presidency. that is what people started paying attention more to the iowa caucuses, 1976. we had them before that. caucuses have grown and changed over the years. we have changes to the rules on the democratic side, but over the years the attention to them really plays on who is running -- who is on the ticket. an incumbent party -- they are not getting nearly as much traction because there is an incumbent and the chances are good incumbent will win the caucuses on the republican side. in 2016, there was a lot of attention on the public inside and relive the democrats, but more on the republican side when it came to the number of candidates.

in 1992, it was an off year because senator tom harkin, who was the governor from iowa, won the caucuses. my first caucus was in 1988. i was a junior delegate. i have been going to him every year. we have them every a, not every four years. they have been happening for quite a while. host: you mentioned jimmy carter as a candidate who won the caucus and the white house. he joins a list that includes george w. bush in 2000 and barack obama in 2008. california is next. david from california in riverside. hello. guest: how are you doing? host: find, thanks. go ahead. caller: i want to talk to the professor. i watched the impeachment hearings, it is not that they can beat donald trump, but they

have gone so far to abortion, gay marriage -- i do not think so many americans would consider voting for people like bernie sanders. what you think of that? americans, i would argue with talk about health care, education, the economy, their day to day lives. the more any party can talk about those issues that matter on a daily basis to americans is who is going to get the most votes. there is a conversation in the party about how far left to go on social issues and what impact that will have on the election. host: overall, doesn't teach me rise -- does impeachment rise to the level that we hear in washington, d.c., pay to it? guest: it is hard to say. people know about it. it meant we did not get to see a lot of senators during the impeachment hearings.

what i'm hearing from people is that is all happening -- everyone feels it is a foregone conclusion, the result, so activists get upset, people get mad on either side of the aisle, but really they care about health care, the economy -- how you will make sure i have a job tomorrow, i don't have two jobs -- that kind of stuff. it is every day life that matters. while impeachment happens and is sucking up all the oxygen there, people are taking kids to daycare, figure not how they will pay their mortgage -- that kind of stuff. host: michigan is next. independent line. hello, ed. caller: thank you. -- hello.r for taking to her taking my call. i was just wondering, back in the 1970's, the issue of pro-life or pro-choice was rather paramount to most people. has that issue disappeared?

i want to know what your opinion is on that? guest: it does not seem like it has disappeared. it is very, very important to a lot of people. it just does not seem like there are many minds changing on that issue. there are single-issue voters on that issue on both sides. i do not see a lot of crossover. i do not see people saying i changed my mind on this issue. it is somewhat static. , except when laws change or regulations are put in place or remove that motivates that portion of the party that really motivates that issue. i would answer the issue is gone. i would to people are firmly entrenched in their camps on that issue. host: professor, according to census data in 2019, when it comes to iowa itself, 85% registering as white or non-latino, and this goes to the

question you have probably heard over the years when it comes to iowa, doesn't need to be more diverse when it is supposed to reflect the entire country? question allr this of the time. is notys say that iowa first because it is important. it is important because it is first. there are a lot of reasons for that. one of things i will say about our diversity and demographics -- we are not the end game. we are the starting point. shows -- help show -- candidates how they can organize, how they do on a handshake level, and it allows candidates, because the state's small, to get out there, raise their profile without having a huge media by, which a lot of states would require. it would rule out people that do not have a lot of campaign money.

it does help to, sort of, broader the field, and then our vote says the other folks we think can do the job well and move them on to new hampshire. then it moves them down to the south. overall, within a pretty quick clip, you have a representative sample of the country will after a -- country after a few primaries and then you get to super tuesday. no one is saying iowa is the most representative state in the country. i would argue there isn't one when it comes to what we're looking for to raise awareness of candidate's ground game. what we have to offer -- we have done this before. we are good at it. we ask tough questions can be taken seriously. we have experience doing this. the best we can offer is we will give you our opinion and then you move on to the next place. we not decide the presidency by any stretch of the imagination. we will be a launching pad and take the rest -- left the rest

of the country take it from there. host: rose is next. democrats line. caller: good morning to you hope i get a couple of minutes. first off, the media keeps promoting joe biden as the most moderate, able to work across party lines, however they seem to forget -- the media -- that joe biden did not get us our supreme court. when justice garland -- when obama was president. that is the first thing. socialism -- as far as his republicans calling in, the guy ,orried about abortion, gays and the impeachment, the socialism -- number one state in the united states of america for socialism is socialism. the alaskans get their permanent , and some every year people would call that socialism. host: ok, caller, for the iowa

caucuses, if you could direct your question to our guest? guest: the aisle -- caller: the iowa caucuses, are they skewed a little bit with that went into iowa to work on the iowa farmers, and how much money did chuck grassley and his family and his welfare checks for the farmers, and where was chuck grassley during the impeachment hearings whether republicans were bashing and wanting to disclose the whistleblower? host: to the point the caller made about trade policy, particularly with iowa's farmers community, how that plays out with those running. guest: the issue in the state of iowa and how that affects agriculture -- you are hearing from iowans say maybe they do not like what the president did with trade policy and that might

be affecting how they caucus, but you also hear from farmers who say they like what they -- what the president is doing overall and it will wait and, and they trust him. i do not know if there is data that has shown it has had an impact electoral he terms of people making a move, switching parties. it will continue to impact voters had been to the november election. we have a whole growing season in there. we will see what happens here in the next few months. i think that will play into how voters decide in november. host: minnesota appeared democrats line. doug. hello. caller: heidi think amy klobuchar will come out in the amyasus -- how do you think klobuchar will come out in the caucuses in iowa? host: senator klobuchar and her chance of winning? guest: clover has been doing great work here. she has gone to -- klobuchar has

been doing great work here. she has gone to all 99 counties. she relates well to iowans. she has the most a legislatures endorsements of any candidate in the state. her: what is it about message that is appealing? guest: she is a neighbor. we are very friendly. we like our neighbors. she has a moderate message of practicality, getting it done. she has been appealing to people that would like to see a woman in the white house and feel like our policies are more in line with their more moderate beliefs, and i also think she is very personable and has been doing the hard work on the ground to raise her profile. she had a hot dish fund riser, and in iowa that is very popular. host: bobby off of twitter asked if there will be an iowa republican caucus? guest: yes.

there will be iowa republican caucuses. they do a differently. republicans do a straw poll. right who you want to be president on a piece of paper drop it into ahead, then they draw and count. we have caucuses every year. there will be caucuses across the state. we do not anticipate there will have the same level of turnout as democrats. the inverse is true when there is an incumbent on the democratic side. host: because these things usually factor in -- what is the weather like in will that help or hinder what goes on tonight? guest: yesterday was gorgeous. yesterday was 60 degrees of people were knocking doors like crazy. we were supposed to get a little bit of sleep, but it looks like relatively good weather. freezing snow.

i do see snow in the forecast when people have to go back to the airport tomorrow. we welcome our media friends to stay in other day if they need to. host: let's hear from the neighbor she spoke about earlier from st. joseph's, minnesota, republicans line. good morning. am trying to get -- i tried to get on earlier. we have democrats running as republicans here. as far as amy klobuchar, she is the one in charge where i live. just to let people know, the democrat platform is trying to say they are between communism and globalism -- that there is a moderate side, and that is what as tries to project herself -- this is what she is for, killing babies, euthanizing elderly, they take the farmers land away, complain about climate change, and the whole agenda is a global agenda, clear the planet of humanity. his clover chart, this is what

they did down in st. paul. they even referred to him as governor mumbles. he has been replaced with a globalist. he was drugged. they propped him up on the platform while they take over behind the scenes and has been horrible in minnesota. host: what would you like our guest to address specifically? caller: ok. host: what would you like our guest to address specifically? caller: i want her to say the truth. we are fighting for the nation, fighting for america. parents, take your kids out of these brainwashing universities in public schools. host: we will leave it there. if you wanted to address that, professor, leave it there. caller: all i will say is iowaan as thes --iowans

candidates all those questions. they had been asked questions across the board about issues all around, and they are pretty used to answering those. i'm sure if they bumped into each other, they would have a good if they bumped into each other, they would have a good conversation. host: what are you watching for tonight if it plays out? guest: turnout. in new voters,is democrats across the border are motivated. interested to see the ranking. we like to complain about horserace journalism but we sure love it. senator sanders probably comes in first, based on polls. to, 3, 4, 5 looks like after that, i don't know. .ooking to see how that works which organization works the best. it is wanting to say you have huge crowds. it is another thing to say that you have people in every

precinct organizing, getting people to the caucuses. , only one ofidate us could go because we had two kids. when they called me to remind me to go, we said we cannot go our sitter dropped out. they said we have day care here at the caucus. that is organization. that is the difference between one caucus vote and two. i will be looking to see who has that and who doesn't. jennifer glover konfrst of greg university talking about the iowa caucuses. thank you for your time. guest: thank you very much. of theur final guest morning, talking more about the horse race, what is expected there. follows politics, presidential politics. we will have that conversation when "washington journal"

continues. ♪ >> during this election season, the candidates be on the talking points are only revealed over time. but since you cannot be everywhere, there is c-span. our campaign 2020 programming differs from all other political coverage for one simple reason. it is c-span. we have brought you your unfiltered view of government every day since 1979. we are bringing you an unfiltered view this november. in other words, your future. this election season, go deep, direct, and unfiltered. see the biggest picture for yourself and make up your own mind. c-span campaign 2020, brought to you as a public service by your television cable provider.

>> the clerk will call the roll. >> my vote is no. 7 np's.e are 23 ayes, 1 pontius pilate has afforded jesus more. >> you just don't like the guy. you didn't like him since november 2016. >> let me be very clear, this president will be held accountable. no one is above the law. >> the question now is whether senator mcconnell will allow a fair trial in the senate. is over.use's hour the senate's time is at hand. face a choicewill about whether to begin the trial in the search of truth or in the

service of the president's desire to cover up. >> knew you solemnly swear that in all things pertaining to the per impeachment of donald trump, president of the united states now pending. >> according to the laws, so help you god. >> since the president was sworn into office, there was a desire to see him removed. >> the impeachment of president trump. watch unfiltered coverage on c-span2, live with same-day readers. follow the process online at /impeachment, and listen on the go using the c-span radio app. >> victory is not waiting for our party. victory is winning for our country. [applause] president trump delivers his

live of the house chamber, tuesday at 8:00 eastern, followed by the democratic response with michigan governor gretchen witmer and texas witmer and texas represented veronica escobar. live coverage on c-span, on-demand and c-span.org, or listen free on the c-span radio app. the democratic presidential candidates have campaign throughout iowa, canvassing for votes leading up to the iowa caucuses. now it is time for the results. the results starting today at 7:30 p.m. eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org, or listen on the c-span radio app. from des moines, iowa, that is where our studio has been days the last couple of days as the caucuses take place.

we have had a series of guests joining us throughout the morning. we will continue on with our conversation from des moines, iowa, with dave price, with who tv, serving as their political director. thank you for joining c-span. guest: nice to be here. what your us expectations are for tonight, who has the strongest chance of coming out on top tonight? guest: i think the consensus looking at this is that bernie sanders should have a good night. he would likely be disappointed if he didn't win tonight. if you go around, especially the last couple of months, you can see the grounds that he has attracted. he has been going to places where he can drive out people. i was city, where the university is. state university, ames.

he was in the northern part of the state over the weekend. when impeachment didn't take him away, when he is here, he is also bringing in musical guests, which is helping to build the crowd. he seems to have that enthusiasm, familiarity with people from running for years ago. i think he is the consensus favorite to win tonight. there's been more speculation over the last week and a half that elizabeth warren should have a good night as well. with,oo, has been dealing as with sanders, warren, and michael bennet, bouncing back and forth with washington, d.c. warren has put together what is maybe the best caucus structure here in the state. you have to not just connect

with people but convince them to show up at the caucus and potentially spend two or three hours of their time taking part in the process. those are probably the two most talked about people right now, inch is perhaps bizarre, that doing so we are leaving out joe biden. there has been more speculation that this could be a challenging night for him. the caucuses are a complicated process. when people get in tonight and can move around a little bit, it's important where you go with a favorite and then have a second favorite potentially, if your favorite does not survive that first round. biden could still have a good night but there are more conversations i've had with people, they are questioning, at the end of the day, joe biden could finish second, third, fourth, or fifth come of which is odd.

buttigieg, the former mayor of south bend, he has a lot of organization. his crowds have been very big. he had one that topped about 2000 yesterday at a des moines high school. those are probably the foremost talked about people. on the outside looking in, amy minnesota the senator. she has been peeking at the right time. she has longer to go, but you look at the crowds she has had and she is bringing that energy and the crowds have been bigger than she had before. her, and she is hoping to surprise people nationally by bouncing into the top four. host: if you want to ask questions, you can call in. we have set aside a line for iowa residents. (202) 748-8003. when it comes to the top two candidates, is that based on your potential support, on your

ability to beat the donald trump, or on policy? guest: perhaps a little bit of both. just as an anecdote, at my station, we put together a group of nine islands across the state. they have primarily supported democrats in the past but some have gone for republicans as well. , they hado this group to say they were completely undecided about a candidate and woodcock is for a democrat. we've been following them for three months. to your point, the biggest factor for them, and this is what is making it most difficult for them, they want a candidate who can defeat donald trump. they believe in the issues. kinds of have all ideas about the best way to solve it and who can do that. but at the end of the day, the most important thing is defeating donald trump. because of that, they have

struggled with this concept of who is the best person positioned to do that. without spoiling the end of this, because some of the pieces will run this afternoon and evening. of these nine people, only four had made up their minds. you still have a very persuadable group in our subset of people, and i think that is playing out across the state. a lot of people may frankly change their mind when they get to that individual caucus site tonight. trend you have seen over previous caucuses or strickler to this one -- strictly to this one? to some degree, you get this in every cycle. i don'tissed 2000, but remember a time when we have seen so many undecideds. i will put a caveat on that and add on persuadables.

you go in tonight, you have that initial demonstration of support, but if your candidate is not viable, doesn't have at least 15% support in the room, that person would not be able to win delegates. so you can change to another candidate. it is that moving around that makes things interesting for me tonight. you will see how people look at the room. it is so important when we have so many undecided people, that your second favorite candidate could end up helping to determine who does best on this night since people are allowed to shift over potentially, if they are going from a candidate that didn't have enough in the first round to the final round. that, that jockeying for position could change the final result. host: our guest is the political director for who tv.

"caucuslso the author of chaos." our first caller is on with dave price. go ahead. caller: i have a question. i cannot get a straight answer to it. i am wondering how can bernie sanders run as a candidate for president when it's been televised that he has done exactly what they have been trying to impeach donald trump for, as far as the quid quo pro. guest: i am not familiar with that allegation and nothing that i have ever heard discussed here. host: new jersey, independent mine. caller: this is a question about strategic voting. is it possible for a bunch of republicans to get together, sign up for the democratic

ideas in iowa with the that if bernie gets in, he will definitely crush trump, but they will vote for biden to get him on top in the iowa caucus. guest: is that in very possible? sure, you could change your voter registration, and you can do that at the precinct caucus site. that is not anything we had experienced before in a widespread, coordinated effort like you are talking about. anybody in this campaign cycle who has talked about doing that. am and i went and i live in another state or country, do i get to participate? guest: you can, and that is what

will be so different about this year. the democratic party faced criticism for a lack of accessibility. hillary clinton in particular in 2008, 2016 compared -- complained about this. anforces you to go to individual caucus site, you have to be in the door before 7:00. for a variety of reasons, people cannot do that. maybe they don't have child care, they are ill, transportation, mobility issues. there are a lot of factors. they tried to make it more accessible, so they came up with this idea of satellite caucuses. the party put together a committee and allowed people to send in applications to host a satellite caucus site from elsewhere. they went through and ended up approving some additional locations in iowa. some in places, the living, those types of things.

some of them got waivers where they don't have to go by 7:00. altogether, 13 different states and washington, d.c. got approved to host these remote sites. there are three foreign countries as well. these will be going on throughout the day. one of them in glasgow i believe begins later this morning. getting in some results before folks start going in mass at 7:00. that is something the party came up with this year. as you can see behind me, the snow. if you are retired and you have the money to do it, we have people that snowbird. do its a way they can without having to fly back into town, do the caucus thing. they can assemble people wherever they are. that is what we are seeing in florida, arizona in particular. this is sort of an experiment, we will see how it goes.

it requires people to be willing to put on one of these things. the parties hope is this more get more people involved in the process. host: we have talked at length this morning but i want your sense on another experiment, the way the results will be recorded, and what you think may come out of that, as you see it. guest: we are always used to spin, right? all campaigns do it. this will give them another avenue to do it. in the past, we get essentially what works out to be the percentage of delegates that the campaigns get. then they can spend it however they want, whether it was a good night, that night, whatever it is. in the effort to be more transparent about how this all happens tonight, and in response to criticism from 2016 when hillary clinton barely beat

bernie sanders when it came to the delegates, at the end of the day, we don't know if bernie sanders got more caucus-goers than clinton did or not, because they don't release those numbers. this time they will. this is a multistep process. you go in tonight. at 7:00, there will be talks, speeches. once you get into the deciding process, you divide into preference groups in the room. everyone supporting candidate a and then here, b, they count off to see who is viable. then they go to the next round. that is when you can move around. ultimately, they decide the percentage of delegates they get. that is usually the number we get. this time around, we are getting three different numbers. the number and result from when they had that initial support. the realignment number, the

percentage, and then a third number will be the raw vote total. we will see three different numbers from each individual precinct site. because of that, that will give the campaigns the potential to put an additional level of spin on this. if you won the first round, you can say we were the real winner because the first round is what matters. are going to spin the second round of numbers, which is what we usually see. then you can spin the third round, the raw vote total, similar to numbers coming out of a primary. potentials out the that we could have several different campaigns claiming victory tonight in ways we have not experienced before. host: from new york, republican line. we will hear from mike. caller: dave, how are you? the democrats have been complaining about the electoral college. i think that would be adverse to the islands. has that come up at all?

guest: it has. it seems like -- candidates talked about that earlier, they were asked about that early on. some candidates were agreeable to the idea that maybe it is time to ditch that system. i'm not sure that i have heard that brought up at a campaign event in probably six months. somewhere because we cannot get to every event, but it was a topic early on. i cannot think of any candidate who has brought that up in his or her stump speech lately. among the traditionalists, there is the fear that if this would happen, iowa is essentially a middle population state, would clearlyess relevant, less than the first in the nation state, of course, but candidates spending time giving

speeches, instead of the town to town politicking that they are used to. they fear they can do some of their influence because of that. host: republican line in maryland. caller: good morning. to me, bernie sanders is just a career politician. he enjoys running. elizabeth warren keeps promising everything for free. we are in debt now. how are they going to keep that promise? biden, everything that trump has accused him of, him and his family have done. every one of these golf courses are getting paid millions because security is going there. his children have their hand in everything. gets the nomination -- i am 76, i'm been a republican since i was 18. i will vote for biden.

let me take the first part of her question about bernie sanders. what is he doing differently this time around than last time around? guest: one thing i've noticed with him -- and you see a lot of the folks that were with him the first time. a lot of his policies are the same, he has had some of these positions for a long time. one of the things that might be different this cycle is their effort for a latino outreach. they seem to have focused more on that. it may be from an outsider's view, the thinking is that i would is a state with a bunch of white people. predominantly, most people are white, of course. but the latino population is the fastest-growing demographic section. you are still talking about maybe 50,000, 60,000 caucus-goers for tonight.

it is somewhere around 6% of the population right now. it is far younger than the overall population in the state, and the fastest-growing. in on that zeroed and probably more aggressive ways than other campaigns here. that is one of the things that sticks out to me. you will see that reflected when you go to his big rallies. you will see more people of color in those grounds then perhaps i remember seeing four years ago. some people on the twitter feed, but because they are connected to concerts, what should you way into that in terms of participation, turnout? good point. that remains to be seen. that concert he did over the weekend in cedar rapids, vampire weekend was there. that even came up in the show, talking about who is from out of town?

this last week in the caucus cycle, iowa has a lot of out-of-town visitors. it been going on the last couple months. choose toeople frankly move here temporarily and volunteer for these campaigns. so you get a lot of out of folks -- out-of-town folks here. it can be slightly misleading when you look at the crowds because you don't know exactly iowans,y are islands -- and how many just like the music and are coming out for the free concert. we will have to wait tonight to see if that translates to a win for him. host: let's hear from matthew. idaho falls, iowa. you.r: thank mr. price, i have a question. i am going to reference the republican female caller several callers back was talking about amy klobuchar.

i get the sense that it has this flavor of being almost psychotic when she talks about amy klobuchar talking about eradicating humanity and killing babies and all of this. is there a moderate democrat that you feel can put together a coalition and at least have a chance of getting some of the moderate republicans? some of the things that trump has done, the bailout with the farmers, that was bigger than the car bailout that obama did. is there any chance that the democratic candidates have to kind of bridge the gap -- host: your signal is breaking in and out. mr. price, go ahead. guest: those conversations have been happening. since you mentioned amy klobuchar, we have a mayor of a des moines suburb, while a nonpartisan position, he is a

republican, and he just publicly endorsed amy klobuchar. gop women'swoman, group across the state, and had left the party because of donald trump. she has also decided to support amy klobuchar. you meet these folks when you go to her rallies. they are people who in the past have voted for republicans. these candidates typically don't like to be labeled, but they seek low which are as more moderate, more pragmatic in the policies that she has been about. to iowans they don't like what they've seen of donald trump, so that is a democrat they think they can support. joe biden has that familiarity with people. have conversations with republicans, ask them if this comes down to a biden-trump matchup, can you see yourself doing this? they say they could potentially

see themselves going that way. a third person in the mix is pete buttigieg. of the three, he may be the one that is openly courting independents and republicans. he will talk about these future former republicans, the way he puts the term together. inhas tried to duplicate some ways what barack obama did in 2007, 2008, where he went to areas where traditionally democrats don't go because they had more republicans. has embraced that, thinking he can grow the pie. that is what obama did in 2008. particular people in . frankly, i've also heard elizabeth warren talk about this. her policies may be more to the left compared to these other is making she, too, the argument that she can put

ideas out there that moderate republicans who are dissatisfied with the president can come over for. ost: called. brian p republican line. caller: good luck with that. that is never going to happen. last week was devastating for the bidens. couplementioned a hundred times about possible corruption overseas. how devastating will that be on the bidens moving forward in light of lindsey graham announcing there will be an investigation into the bidens out of this? cnn that the des moines register poll at the last moment, do you think that was because of the negative polling because of biden and the investigations and everything else? thank you very much. looks real nice there. guest: ok.

oft's try to unpack all this. let's see if i can remember all the points. for the des moines register/cnn poll, i don't know any poll, i don't know any conspiracy that this was dumped at the last second because there was bad news for joe biden. the reputation of the pollster would supersede any concern for any candidate involved in this, since ann has been a part of this for decades. is only thing i know about you had one person who got a phone call. that person did not have buttigieg as a candidate choice. this person reported it. it made its way up the chain and there was a late decision to pull this because they couldn't guarantee that this didn't happen to someone else. at the end of the day, this may have happened to just one person but they cannot say whether it happened to more.

i haven't heard anything about joe biden. in terms of impeachment, does this hurt biden in any way? covering the vice say, coveringe president at rallies here for the most part, almost never, i think maybe one time i remember this coming up, but for the most part, people do not bring it up. from the democratic side, people think these are unfounded allegations by the president's team now. it looks like biden in a head-to-head matchup can beat the president and they question why this did not come up years ago and why this is coming up now. the president, and we are hearing joni ernst, lindsey graham, they have been talking about that this whole concept of impeachment was just a way to overturn the will of the people. but now from what i'm seeing from what senator ernst has said, if joe biden becomes

president, she is trying to push the same thing that she complained about, just on the flipside. she is saying there will be an investigation into biden, which i am assuming the democrats say is a way to undermine the will of the people. we will see how this plays out, but as of now, i do not know how heavily that is bringing down potential for biden here. having said that, you go out to his events and he does not have the crowds that some of these other folks have. he came into the game late. he may not have the organization some of these others do. could impeachment be a factor? sure, it could be what some people. i do not know that it is an overwhelming, overarching theme. host: joining us from des moines, the political director of who tv based in des moines, iowa. you can find out more about him and the programming he does when it comes to politics online. thanks for your time. guest: you bet. good to be here. host: that is it for our show today.

remember, 11:00, the senate impeachment trial resumes with closing arguments. you can see that on c-span2 and follow along online at c-span.org. the iowa caucuses coverage starts tonight. all that information and more available on our website, c-span.org. that is it for our program today. another program comes your way tomorrow morning at 7:00. see you then. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2020] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> today, the iowa caucuses begin the process for choosing the eventual democratic presidential candidate.

we will have live coverage beginning 9:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. over the weekend in iowa, candidates brought their campaigns to residents across the state. today, we will show you their speeches and interactions with voters, beginning this morning with michigan senator amy klobuchar in cedar rapids, iowa. afterwards, we will tell you tom steyer's town hall and give you a preview of what to expect from voters in iowa. seessenator klobuchar polling in fifth place in the state.