vice president pence to remove president trump using the 25th amendment was introduced monday after debate later today. we expect that to begin around 4:00 this afternoon. on wednesday, the house considers an impeachment resolution accusing president trump of "incitement of insurrection." we will have gavel-to-gavel coverage starting at 9:00 eastern today and wednesday on c-span. coming up, lisa mascara of the associated rest discusses the -- of the associated press discusses the latest plans from house democrats to hold an impeachment vote for president trump this week. at 8:00, james wallner previews the relationship between a divided senate and the incoming

joe biden administration. and at 8:30, michigan state university law professor brian kalt discusses the role and history of the 25th amendment. host: it is tuesday, january 12, 2020 one. the house will vote on a resolution calling on vice president mike pence to invoke the 25th amendment and strip president trump of his power. if the vice president does not act housesit a hold impeachment vote this week. all of this will put the spotlight back on mike pence. we are asking for your view of the vice president. have you supported his actions on how he handled his role in the two months since election day. if you have supported the actions of the vice president, (202) 748-8000.

if you have oppose them, (202) 748-8001. you can also send us a text, (202) 748-8003. please include your name and where you are from. otherwise catch up on social media. twitter is @cspanwj. facebook is facebook.com/c-span. you can start calling it now. it was just days ago mike pence was on the floor of the house overseeing the certification of the electoral college victory count of joe biden's victory in the november election. yesterday on the house floor the democrats were in the chamber with a resolution aimed at the vice president, calling on him to invoke the 25th amendment. that resolution democrats tried to move by unanimous consent. they were blocked from doing so yesterday. i want to show you how it looked on the house floor.

democratic congresswoman debbie dingell providing -- presiding as chair. steny hoyer opposing the legislation and republican alex moody of west virginia objecting to it. >> for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? >> i asked unanimous consent the committee on the judiciary he discharged from further consideration of h res 21 and ask for its immediate consideration and the house. >> the clerk will record the title of the resolution. >> house resolution 21, resolution calling on vice president michael pence to convene the executive officers of the cabinet and activate section four of the 25th amendment to declare donald trump incapable of executing the duties of his office and immediately exercise powers as acting president. >> for what purpose this the --

for what purpose does the democrat -- does the gentle men from west virginia rise? >> i object. >> objection is heard. pursuant to section one b of house resolution 8, the house is adjourned until 9:00 tomorrow. host: 9:00 today is when legislative business is set to start on the east coast in the house of representatives. we will take you there live for gavel-to-gavel coverage when they do. this morning we are focusing on mike pence. headlines focusing on mike pence as well. this is the story from today's new york times. "house to vote on impeaching trump unless pence act." the washington times noting mike pence met with president trump, the first time they met since their falling out over the right. both men pledged cysts to say -- -- over the riot. both men pledged to stay in office.

president trump is set to visit the border in texas in one of his last official act, an effort to make sure americans remember the wall. that is where the president is focused as the houses focused on the 25th amendment and the beginning of the second impeachment of president trump. we are asking you for your view of mike pence this morning. do you support or oppose his actions since election day? if you support it, (202) 748-8000. if you oppose it, (202) 748-8001 . dean is in louisville, kentucky. caller: should have section 25 come and play with donald trump. he needs to be investigated. if mike pence wants to have a career he needs to do what is right. i am a republican, but donald trump is just for donald trump.

people will do his bidding. my governor already pass the buck to somebody else. he will never take credit. host: you think mike pence is somebody who has done donald trump's bidding? caller: he is a pretty good guy but he has been on the wrong side. i am a christian person. there is no way i can be on donald trump steam with all the stuff he says all the time. why would mike pence -- host: that is dean in kentucky. this is eric from new hampshire on the line for those who have opposed mike pence action. caller: i want to say i do oppose mike pence. i think he did support the

president through his administration. at the end he pulled the rug out from underneath trump. he was setting up his 2024 run. a lot of other politicians, republicans, are doing the same thing. they are setting up the 2020 for run for president. yesterday you had a picture of a protester yelling at a security officer at the capital, but for some reason the security officer had a michigan state police caps on. i was wondering why you are using a picture from michigan to show the protests at the capital on wednesday? thanks and have a great day. host: thanks for the question. i'm not sure what picture you are talking about but i will bring it up with my producer

downstairs and try to get to the bottom of that. rex in greenville, ohio. your thoughts on mike pence? caller: signed an executive order that mike pence is no longer vice president of the united states. that is my understanding. host: say again? you think the president should sign in order and mike -- and make vice president mike pence not the vice president? caller: i have heard he has already signed that executive order. host: that is not something i've heard. what are your thoughts on mike pence and his actions last week? president trump was feuding with mike pence over his actions last week when he was presiding over the certification on capitol hill of the electoral college vote count. caller: my understanding is mike pence is on a list that is

opposing donald trump and mike pence is in a situation where he has to go along with the deep state. host: your understanding from where? caller: a lot of it is blogs on the internet. a lot of that stuff has been taken down. host: that is rex in ohio. these are the comments of vice president mike pence just hours after the storming of capitol hill, after capitol police and national guard had taken back both chambers of the capital. the senate returns, to count the electoral college vote, and mike president -- and vice president mike pence made his own comments. [video clip]

>> this was a dark day in the u.s. capital. the federal, state, and local law enforcement, violence was quelled. the capital is secured and the people's work continues. we condemn the violence that took place here in the strongest possible terms. we grieve the loss-of-life in these hallowed halls as well as the injuries suffered by those who defended our capital today. we will always be grateful to the men and women who stayed at their posts to defend this historic place. to those who reach havoc in our capital today, you did not win. violence never wins. freedom wins. this is still the people's

house. as we reconvene in this chamber, the world will witness the resilience and strength of our democracy. even in the wake of unprecedented violence and vandalism in the capital, the elected representatives of the people of the united states have assembled again on the very same day to support and defend the constitution of the united states. may god bless the lost, the injured, and the heroes forged on this day. may god bless all who serve here and those who protect this place and may god bless the united states of america. let's get back to work. [applause]

host: vice president mike pence in the early hours of thursday morning, hours after the storming of the capital by riders on capitol hill -- by rioters on capitol hill. asking for your view of the vice president. you support him, you oppose him? darrell on the line of those who support him. good morning. caller: i do not support -- host: we cannot really hear you. just call back. we will try to get that line better as we go to high rock, north carolina. good morning. your thoughts on the vice president. caller: my thoughts on the vice president are pretty dim.

the constitution has not been for a native person or a dark person since they wrote it. i think there are two separate constitutions and it does not cover us. look how they treated native people. please look at what they are doing to the navajo in new mexico right now. look where their hospital is. please look. please look and see what you have done to us proud people who have tried to teach you mother earth is more important than religion or money. host: richard in oklahoma is next on the line for those who oppose the actions of the vice president. richard, go ahead. caller: how are you doing this morning. host: i'm doing well.

what are your thoughts on the vice president? caller: i oppose the vice president and the actions he has taken since the election because he has fit in to the narrative the democrats and socialists in our country are trying to place that there -- host: there was not any what? i am sorry -- caller: i am sorry , i have to turn the tv down. that there was not any improprieties in the past presidential election. mainstream media and the democrats are demanding we not believe our very eyes of what we have seen. we saw evidence of it. they are telling us it does not exist and denying it in the face of facts that we have seen. host: some 50 court cases dismissed these lawsuits about the election fraud.

what you say there is plain fact? why aren't the courts seeing them? caller: did any of these court cases get before a jury of the people? host: what would make you trust the election? what would make you trust the next election? caller: i am not going to trust any election going forward unless all of the improprieties we have seen video tape of and we have over 1000 sworn documents attesting to, unless something is done about this past election. host: richard in oklahoma. taking your calls in this first hour about mike pence, the focus of the legislation the democrats

will try to move on the house floor. they tried yesterday to move it by unanimous consent. this is the resolution for calling on the vice president to invoke the 25th amendment against president trump. democrats have said they plan to move forward with impeachment if mike pence does not do that. for the latest on the impeachment efforts, we are joint on the phone by lisa mascaro, chief congressional correspondent for the associated press. good morning. what is the latest on the timeline for impeachment and how democrats plan to move this in a short window. guest: good morning. this is a very quick process. democrats are speeding ahead. we are just six days from the surge of the capital last week and we are hearing from

democrats they want to take quick action to show this cannot stand. they are moving ahead. the house will be back tonight to vote on this first step, which is the 25th amendment resolution calling on mike pence, the vice president, to invoke his powers under the 25th amendment to the constitution, to work with the cabinet to declare the president unfit. that resolution is expected to be approved tonight by the house. in a lot of ways it is somewhat symbolic because it does put the effort onto the folks at the white house, the vice president and the cabinet to take action. as we have seen, there is no movement from the vice president or the cabinet officials to do this. we have not heard any cabinet officials say they would be willing to vote that way.

certainly the vice president has not said he would be interested in doing that. our folks at the white house reported the president and vice president did meet last night for the first time and had what was described as a good conversation about the next week. it does not seem that will happen. house democrats are preparing to start the debate on the impeachment charge on wednesday. we will see if they get through the debate and get to the vote by the end of wednesday. house lawmakers are returning to the capital at the debate will start tomorrow. the impeachment resolution is a single charge against the president. it is the charge of incitement of an insurrection. that will be debated and eventually voted on on the house floor.

a number, if not all of the democrats in the house, are expected to approve that. we are hearing there could be a few house republicans that join in that vote. house republican leadership appears split on this issue, as do the rank and file house republican lawmakers. kevin mccarthy, the leader of the house republicans, has told lawmakers last night in a letter to his colleagues that he did not believe impeachment would take the country in the direction of unity, that would have the opposite result. however, we understand that liz cheney, the congresswoman, third ranking republican in the house, did tell her colleagues last night that they should vote their conscience on this and they should do whatever they

think is right. she has not said how she would vote, but she has been critical of the president's actions that led up to the day of the riot at the capital. we will see where those votes lie. the impeachment process, if the house does vote to impeach, the charges go to the senate, which convenes for impeachment trial. that is expected to be potentially -- we can talk more about how that would unfold. in the senate it would take it would take a two thirds vote to convict. that does not seem likely with the senate so narrowly split. it would take more than a dozen republicans to come on board to

join democrats. it is unclear there would be anywhere near that number of support in the senate. lawmakers are moving quickly. usually in impeachment process is a long process as we saw in 2019 when house democrats took on impeaching the president over his actions towards ukraine. a long, involved process with lots of debate in the long trial in the senate. this will not be that. this will be a very fast undertaking. host: we are talking with lisa mascaro, chief congressional correspondent for the associated press about the impeachment resolution. i want to read viewers the last paragraph or two of that resolution. as you mentioned, lisa mascaro, one article, incitement of insurrection. this is the resolution proposed

by congressman jamie raskin, congressman jerry nadler -- the last two paragraphs saying "president trump greatly endangered the security of the united states and its institution of government, interfered with the peaceful transfer of power, and imperiled the coequal branch of government. he thereby betrayed his trust as president. donald john trump, by such conduct has demonstrated he will made a threat to national security, democracy, and the constitution if allowed to remain in office. he is asked -- he has acted in a manner incompatible with self-government and the rule of law. donald john trump does work impeachment, removal from office, and ineligibility to hold any office under the united states." the last two paragraphs of the impeachment resolution. lisa mascaro, what about some of

the other steps being proposed by republicans? you talked about republican supporting this resolution, but we have seen a push by others for a censure resolution, something not quite the step of impeaching the president for a second time. caller: that's right -- guest: that's right. there is a group of republicans in the house considering a censure resolution and is something leader mccarthy mentioned in his letter to colleagues that this is something he would review. there were other ideas around trying to review what has just happened, look back at the election and some other proposals as well. the censure resolution seems to be the one republicans who did have concerns about what happened, those concerns may be willing to support -- i think

democrats and others see it as a step back. the thing about an impeachment as part of the resolution that was put forward is the gravity of it. president trump would be the first in history ever twice be impeached. it also carries the weight of preventing him from holding public office. that is part of this, when you look at what democrats are trying to do, they are saying because of what you read in the final paragraphs of resolution, they believe he is a great danger and should be excluded and that is the weight of the resolution is much more weighty than the censure resolution. host: finally, you talked about

possible republican support for impeachment. can you touch on whether democrats are fully united in this effort both in the house and senate. are you hearing about any democrats who may not support this step? guest: that is a very good question. at this point i have not heard of democrats who would be voting against it. that is definitely something we have been looking at today. are there any centrist democrats , democrats from those areas where trump has been very popular, who would be concerned of doing this? right now the initial i have heard even last week as there was such concern about what happened, the unprecedented nature of the violence at the capital. even the centrist democrats who

would not have wanted to vote to impeach last time or was wary of doing that this time were leaning into it. they felt they needed to go on the record to say this was wrong. we will see today as the debate unfolds and as we essentially get to the vote tomorrow or by the end of the week. host: lisa mascaro, congressional correspondent for the associated press, always appreciate your time, especially during such a busy time. thank you very much. caller: thank you. host: -- guest: thank you. host: back your phone calls. we are focusing on mike pence. that is because the first action the house will take is an attempt to move resolution calling on the vice president to invoke the powers given to him by the 25th amendment to strip president trump of his powers as president. we will talk more about the mechanics of the 25th amendment

later in our program, about one hour from now. michigan state professor who specializes in the 25th amendment will be joining us, brian kalt is his name. he has written a book on the limits of section four of the 25th amendment. right now we are asking for your thoughts on vice president mike pence and his actions and selection day. winchester, tennessee, on the line for those who support. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i believe the president -- i am hoping the 25th amendment will pass today. i have two questions. i feel the president should be arrested as an accessory to all of this business that happened.

he incited this riot. i heard he was sitting in his office while all of this was going on and why doesn't that make him an accessory to the deaths that took place? he could have come out and brought that crowd under control. he took no action. why is he exempt from being arrested and charged with these crimes? host: this is read in king george, virginia, poses the actions of the vice president. go ahead. caller: good morning. i often hear people speaking, senators, congressmen, in this

country about we are a nation of laws. if we are a nation of laws, you say there is no one above the law. clearly shown there is someone above the law -- the president of the united states of america. he can pardon whoever he wants. he can even attempt to try to pardon himself. how can you ever show the people in this nation and around the world that truly there is no one in america that is above the law? host: one weight we have in the constitution to help contain the president is if the vice president and majority of the cabinet choose to do so, section four of the 25th amendment.

do you think vice president mike pence should invoke that and what you think of this is -- of his actions in the last couple of months? caller: mike pence should invoke that good the senate and congress should have been on top of that that day. they should have stayed in session. the people involved in this terrorist act need to be charges terrorists. not these little charges i see being given out there not terrorist charges. host: red in king george, virginia. it would take a majority of the cabinet and vice president mike pence to come together to invoke the 25th amendment. we have seen resignations from the president's cabinet in the last several days including betsy devos, elaine chaochad wos

how the washington post put it. wolf was overseas in the middle east last week during the siege of the capital. he attributed his decision to "recent events." peter gaynor, administrator of the emergency management agency will take over as acting dhs secretary. it will be the sixth chief, twice the number of any other administration. it comes at a time of high anxiety for law enforcement officials as they prepare for the possibility of violent attempts to disrupt the inauguration of president-elect joe biden. and what is going to happen on inauguration day. first, the security expected on capitol hill. a story from "the washington post" says 15,000 national

guardsmen could be deployed for the inauguration. that story looking into the defenses that have gone into place around the u.s. capitol including a seven foot high fence around the capital and other fences as well, chain-link fences starting blocks from the capital down the national mall. here is a picture of some of those tenses around the capital. the layer's of security that have been put in place. our colleagues out taking those pictures. that is a seven foot high fence. one closer to the capital, buses are being brought in for national guard members. these are from our colleagues here at c-span. the story focusing on what will happen that day for joe's inauguration. barack obama, george w. bush, and bill clinton will join for a

wreath-laying ceremony at the tomb of the unknown soldier after joe biden's swearingen. -- swearing in. the announcement came yesterday following president donald trump's announcement that he will skip joe biden's inauguration. we are expected to have vice president mike pence attend the swearing-in ceremony and the inauguration. vice president mike pence stepping into the spotlight once again today with this effort by house democrats to get him to invoke the 25th amendment. he is the focus of this question in the first hour of washington journal. do you support his actions or oppose them? for those that support, go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. not only is mike pence complicit, but all other republicans -- [indiscernible]

these organizations are cutting their ties to trump. he has imposed sanctions on countries like iran. the people are suffering and it is time for trump to take a little bit of his medicine. i think it is a time for all other international and domestic companies to cut ties to trump. host: this is carol in iowa city, iowa. the line that have opposed the president -- the vice president actions. caller: i have opposed his actions before election day and everything. but afterwards, i have to say that his speech in the senate to get the senators back to work to take a vote was probably the

best thing he has ever said. as far as him using the 25th amendment, i don't think he's going to do that. i'm not sure, but if trump could run again -- if he just resigned. i think pence is looking at the impeachment process so that trump could not run again. pence might have a chance to be president after all this is over. i don't know what his chances could be, but they don't look very good right now. probably, we will have to wait until after the inauguration for any kind of impeachment to occur. but i hope it does because it would certainly cancel any plans trump has of doing anything and curtail his moves for his

followers. host: in iowa, from the vice president's home state, this op-ed appeared late last week. it is written by the henry county council president from 2009 to 2019. he said that he has known pence personally since at least 1990. this is what he wrote directed to mike pence. "now is your time. your remaining days, you have the weight of the world on your shoulders and can be our unifier. you can restore our reputation as a shining city on a hill both at home and abroad. effective january 20, you will become a natural leader of the party. you're the only one who can unite fiscal conservatives and social conservatives, traditional republicans, and trump republicans or cow --

trump republicans." it's from the indianapolis star the day after the attack on the capitol. from a line supporting the actions of the vice president. caller: good morning. i am a democrat poll worker veteran, soon to be 78 years old. these people that call-in and question the validity of the vote need to get out and work at the polls. and this male bovine fecal material about reuniting the divisions that the republicans have used for years to separate people is nonsense.

host: you called in on the line for those that support the actions of the vice president. caller: i know i'm off subject but i usually call at the end of the show. host: why do you support the vice president's actions? caller: i think he has no choice if he wants to have a political career. host: and that is his main focus right now? caller: yes. i will be glad to answer any questions you have of me about how elections are run in north carolina. i can't speak for any other state. host: you worked at the polls this election? caller: absolutely. host: do you plan to do it again? caller: absolutely. i look at it like military

service or jury duty. it is something that should be expected of everybody. host: that is tim in north carolina. from the line opposing the actions of the vice president. go ahead. caller: i really don't understand why the republicans haven't tried to impeach nancy pelosi because of her inefficiency during the riot. let's face it. five times someone was asked, and the buck stops with her, if they should get the national guard in. and five times, they were told no. so where is the republicans on an impeachment charge for nancy? host: you are referring to the washington post interview with

the now former chief of capitol police about the number of times he asked for help and it was either slowed down or not given. the focus of his criticism seemed to be on the now former sergeants at arms of the house and senate. a story in the new york times focusing on them, paul irving and michael stanger, now the former sergeants at arms. that is noting their backgrounds working as service agents before coming to capitol hill. out of raleigh, north carolina, the line of those opposing the action of the ice -- vice president. caller: good morning. i will make it quick. i accidentally called on the wrong line because i am betwixt and between.

most people i have spoken to do not understand the 25th ammendment. to my understanding, based on the legal scholars, the 25th ammendment is when a president is incapacitated. he is unconscious, had a stroke, he cannot carry on his duties. that is my understanding of the 25th ammendment. most people don't understand that. host: what you are talking about is one of the sections of the 25th amendment, one of the earlier sections that does deal with that. section four of the 25th ammendment is the focus of democrats efforts and has been the focus since the attack on capitol hill. let me read you what section four of the 20. "whenever the vice president and a majority of the executive department or such body as

congress may, by law, provide to the president pro tem of the senate and speaker of the house, a written declaration that the president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the vice president shall immediately assume the power and duties of acting president." it goes on to talk about challenging the decision of the vice president and how the congress would step in and make that decision if it is challenged. that is the focus right now. that is what democrats want vice president mike pence to do and are giving him 24 hours to do or they move forward with impeachment. caller: right. thank you very much for that. the other point i was making was that for four years, they have

been trying one way or another to impeach this president. that is why i'm against it. i don't believe it will unite the country. i am an undeclared voter. i vote democrat and republican. i look at the track record of each person and look at what their intention is for the country based on what they've said. host: this is michael in flint, michigan. the line for those that have supported the actions of the vice president. caller: hi, how are you. host: doing well. go ahead. caller: first of all, i would like to say that mike pence is between a rock and a hard place. the situation he's in right now

is a creation of his own. he has supported this president for four years. he has created a monster. that has come to bite him. now that he is, what you would say, woke, is relieving. at the same time, we have heard over the past few hours that he has spoken to the president and they have tried to make amends. you have to look at the situation where himself and his family were put in danger by the rhetoric put out by the president and his supporters. how do you mend that situation? host: how do you think that situation could be mended? caller: i don't think it can. if you put yourself in that same

situation or you put yourself into his shoes, would you forgive an individual like that that put your family and yourself, your lives in danger. host: it is unusual for the vice president as the presiding officer to make too many comments when they are presiding over a joint session for accounting and certification of electoral votes, but he did make those comments. what did you think of them from early thursday morning? caller: sure. don't get me wrong. he showed some spine, right? there was a call for north carolina that made mention that i somewhat agree with that there are political intentions behind him doing this.

backing up the support, somewhat support of the 25th ammendment. and he's holding back now. so in saying all that, i just think -- like i said previously when i started off, he's between a rock and a hard place. it's hard to know which way this will go. but don't get me wrong, there are political aspirations behind everything he does. it is commendable what he's doing now. down the road, who's to say? host: michael talking about the danger that mike pence's family was in and members of the capitol hill were in during the

storming of the capitol hill. this tweet is from the democratic congresswoman bonnie watson announcing, including sheltering with several colleagues that refused to wear masks, i have decided to take a covid test and i have tested positive. i am experiencing -- i will continue to work on behalf of my constituents. one other note on covid and capitol hill. this is from congresswoman jamia paul -- jamayapal saying that i just received a positive covid test after being locked down with several republicans who not only cruelly refused to wear a mask but mocked colleagues and staff that offered them one. that tweet from very early this

morning. about 15 minutes left to talk about your thoughts on vice president mike pence, his actions since election day. chesapeake, virginia, you are next. caller: good morning. i oppose the vice president. since january 6, he has been holding the actions that the president took as treason. pence has been under his wing for the last four years. he knew which direction he was going into. he only switched trains at the midnight hour when he knew that if he didn't switch the train now, he would also be considered part of trump's group.

but he's been there all the times. and the fact that he has not done anything since january 6, and he saw what happened. how they desecrated, and how the white house -- the capitol means nothing to those people. it only shows how much -- it shows their character. for any humans being to do that kind of thing in a public place. host: joe is next out of stafford, virginia. the line of those that support vice president mike pence hoss actions -- pence's actions since election day. >> i have a lot of difficulty understanding what is going on. how things are mischaracterized.

for instance, it looked like an attempted assassination from these films where people had gallows and people are using bludgeons on police officers. i don't see how in the world anybody could be declared fit to be president involved in an attempted assassination of public figures for political gain. the word assassination has not been used. call me old-fashioned. i will give other people an opportunity host:. host:-- an opportunity. host: one of the chants captured on video, "hang mike pence." caller: exactly. you clearly have a mob looking to assassinate. and one thing that happened with the nazis in the 20's was that they had individual

assassinations of prominent jews before it got carried away. the mentality of this is clearly very pro-fascist and anti-american. the word assassination is certainly appropriate in this circumstance since they had gallows up. like your picture there. and it is a problem of getting our language in line. describing what happened, it is shocking. it is like getting hit in between the eyes of a two by four. host: kingsport, tennessee, the line for those opposing the action of vice president mike pence. caller: i think trump has done a lot of things for this nation. we have corruption on both sides

of the aisle. you have corruption in the senate and in the house of representatives. until you get all that cleaned out -- they have opposed trump ever since he was in there and they want to get rid of him. host: what do you think about the relationship between donald trump and mike pence? caller: i think mike pence has been a decent vice president, but sometimes he supports trump and sometimes he didn't. but they are looking for futures down the road, i think. maybe a third party to run in the next election. host: just sorting through the many op-ed's in today's papers. through a few of them -- i will

sort through a few of them for you. the challenge is to hold the president accountable without harming the effort of the new administration. the editorial board of the new york times, impeach mr. trump again. the wall street journal, he could help his country and the presidency by calling off the house. and from washington post, cori bush, a first-term congresswoman from missouri, this is the america black people know. it's one of the paragraphs from her column. she said what transpired on wednesday was not america and they are wrong. this is the america that black people know. to declare this is not america is to deny the reality that they incited this coup by working to

overturn the result of the presidential election. it is to deny the fact that one of my senator josh hawley went out of his way to salute the white supremacists before the attempted coup. it refers to valid votes of black, brown, and indigenous voters in the midst of a pandemic that disproportionately kills us. we overcame voter suppression to deliver a victory to joe biden and kamala harris. one other note from former secretary of state and first lady hillary rodham clinton. america: we need to do some soul-searching. back to your phone calls for the final five minutes or so. house coming in at 9:00 a.m. eastern for legislative business. a shorter than usual washington journal. we will take you when it happens for gavel-to-gavel coverage.

miles patterson from new jersey, good morning. caller: how are you? host: doing good. go ahead. caller: before the riot started, they said the president would be there at 11:00 but he came at 12:00. right before he left, what they said -- republicans are talking about how they are supposed to be about law and order. host: what do you think about the vice president? caller: that's what i'm speaking on. he is the vice president and they are talking about law and order. he has to do the right thing. if they will keep talking about law and order, this is where he has to step to the plate p. -- to the plate. people are chanting to hang him. you have people chanting to hang the vice president of the united states. you have the next in line, nancy pelosi, in that building.

you need to bring her back and ask her what she thinks about all this. i think what they did was wrong. and mike pence has to do the right thing. if you don't, he's no better than the rest of them. -- if he don't, he's no better than the rest of them. caller: i think it is nonsense. listen to the speech. nothing was said to intimidate, to aggravate the people to march. the mayor was told it was a huge crowd coming through the streets of d.c. she was told to get the guard out. she refused to get the guard out. in the disaster, to take advantage of it -- host: what do you think of the vice president? caller: he should not do anything. in charleston, the anti-fascist,

what are they, communist? the democratic governor allowed the state troops to stand back? they were attacked and nothing was done about it. host: howard beach, new york. good morning. your thoughts on the vice president. caller: i think vice president pence was a sycophant for the president. someone who supported a megalomaniac. someone who supported someone who is so dastardly of character, of personality. it was written on the wall after he opened his mouth. the president, when he said john mccain wasn't a hero. everyone in the country should have known that this man, there

was something wrong with him. he has gone along with saying things like mexicans are rapists and other things like that. where is the sensibility of this country? pence supported him. he lent more credence, somehow, to this president. what happened is very sad. he will get his just desserts. host: his actions overseeing the vote counting, the certification did not change your opinion at all? caller: anyone who had any mind

-- all he had to do is make an announcement. you mean we have to give him credit for an open company not saying we are going to revolt? he counted the votes ended did what he was supposed to do. he gets no credit for doing the obvious. what he should have said was no, i'm not going to do this, right off the bat. and when the president said something that was obviously wrong as an what happened in charlottesville, he should have said, mr. president. i don't agree with you. the people that caused the death of that woman, they are unpatriotic and we don't need them for our support. host: that was bernie in new york. this is patty from connecticut. good morning.

caller: good morning. i'm calling in because i never heard this kind of reaction on washington journal. when biden and obama tried to push term out of -- trump out of office with russia collusion, why didn't you cover that? why is it always one way here? brian lamb never put his input in anything. he said my job is just to push the button. host: the job is just to push the button. we have covered the impeachment. we have covered the russia investigation. we have covered all these things. we have a show 306 to five days a year and we cover everything that happens. our job is to create a forum for folks to call in. and today we are asking for your opinion of mike pence. caller: you covered it and made trump look guilty.

come to find out it was all a farce. no one ever brought this up. put it on air again and clear it up. host: what do you think of the vice president? caller: he will do the best he can. what could he do? he's not running for anything after this. it's over. host: you don't think he will? caller: he even admitted it. i would not want to be in that cesspool. host: if he did run down the road, would you vote for him? caller: why not? he did nothing wrong and neither did trump. this was all a coup right from the beginning. and stop quoting hillary. that one belongs in jail. goodbye. host: our last caller in this first segment of washington journal. stick around. another hour to go. we will be talking with a fellow at the -- a staffer talking

about the rare 50-50 split of the u.s. senate following the runoff last week in georgia. and later we will be joined by michigan state university law professor brian colt about impeaching and convicting a president in such a short window. stick around. we will be right back. ♪ >> the votes for president of the united states are as follows. joseph r biden junior of the state of delaware has received 306 votes. donald j. trump with the state of florida has received 232 votes. >> with the votes in the 2020 election counted and confirmed by congress, attention turns to the inauguration of the 46th

president of the united states. joe biden and kamala harris take the oath of office as president and vice president of the u.s. live coverage begins on wednesday, january 20. watch live on c-span. watch live streaming on demand at c-span.org or with free c-span radio app. >> "washington journal" continues. host: jay waller joins us on what a 50-50 senate divided means for the incoming administration. i know you spent years working on capitol hill and you live on capitol hill. your thoughts on the events of last wednesday? guest: i think like many millions of other americans, i was just shocked. i am still unpacking it. it is truly shocking to me.

it really was a sad day and a tragic day for all americans. host: one of the topics i know you study is the rule, the institution of the senate. we are getting a warp speed lesson on the rules of the senate when it comes to an impeachment trial in a very short window. what is your thought on if democrats in the house say they will impeach the president this week. can a senate trial be held in the timeframe before he leaves office? guest: one thing i have learned in the senate is that anything is possible. it's important to acknowledge it is very difficult. the procedural posture will bar it from starting. if the house passes articles of impeachment prior to january 20 at 1:00 p.m., one hour after joe biden is sworn into office and president trump leaves office.

of course, the senate can agree to waive the current procedural posture by unanimous consent. and there has been discussion of having a trial after president trump leaves office. it has only happened twice before in american history. and also the impeachment trial in the president's cabinet. in both of those instances, there is no conviction. it is literally unprecedented for the senate to convict an official that is no longer an office of the charges in an article of impeachment. host: and a trio of republican senators you have worked for. what is your read on republican senators having enough republican senators to convict on impeachment charges? guest: it is not clear.

it could be closer than this time last year. it is not clear that two thirds of the senate are willing to vote to convict. i suspect once the president leaves office and is no longer capable of being removed from office, you get into this unprecedented territory. i suspect the climate will shift and you will have fewer republicans that will vote to convict the former president in that instance. and many democrats are wondering why they are chewing up valuable floor time and agenda time during president biden's first 100 days of unified government to litigate and adjudicate these past disputes with the former president. host: unified government will start january 20 at noon. when was the last time it was such slim majorities in the house and senate? only 11 seat majority in the house for democrats. guest: these narrow majorities

are more or less the norm when we do have unified government these days. that being said, the last time you had a 50-50 split in the senate, the narrowest of narrow margins was in 2001. in 2003, a 51-vote majority. a 50-50 split does not happen very often. it's only the third time in american history we have seen a 50-50 split. host: what should viewers know about how the senate is run during a 50/50 split? guest: the senate has to organize itself. under rule 25, they said at the standing committees. they are the workhorses of the congress. they have members that continue in those spots. and you have new members after elections that come in and need to be added to committees. the majority party is presumed to have more seats. they have to organize the

chamber. that simply means naming the members of the committees, setting the ratio to favor the majority party, and approve the higher funding for the majority party and new office space. that is the first thing you have to do. when you have a 50/50 split, and the senate, you can't pass anything without a simple majority and it can be filibustered. it just creates an added complication for party leaders to get an agreement that can pass. they usually passed by voice vote. host: chuck schumer will be the majority leader in the senate. it was last week before the attack on the capital when he was talking with reporters about the senate agenda and what he will do as a leader of the chamber.

>> [inaudible] >> as i told you, it's one of the things we want to do. we campaigned on it and are strongly for it. we think the american people need it. >> how does this change the calendar and the way forward on nominees? >> look. obviously, with democratic control, the ability for joe biden to move nominations forward will be easier. the calendar i have not begun to look at yet. >> have you talked about the moment where you learned you would be the majority leader. progressives are pushing you to nuke the legislative filibuster. can you make that promise? >> we senate democrats know we face one of the greatest crises americans have. we are united in wanting

big-bold change. we are discussing ways to get that done. host: james waller, those -- wallner, comments on stimulus and nuking the filibuster. guest: there is so much in these comments that illuminate how the senate will operate and why i think the senate will continue to operate like it has in the past. the last thing the future majority leader said was we will sit down as a caucus. that underscores the fact that the senate floor is no longer an arena where these decisions are adjudicated and made. they are made at party lunches and party members themselves meeting in caucus and making a decision to come out and go forward to line and get the agreement through. i don't expect that to change.

and for nominations, if you look at the record over the last four years or the last two years, the bulk of the nominees have been confirmed on a bipartisan basis. nominations are confirmed, scheduled for the floor. in this case, chuck schumer and mitch mcconnell. prior to the november elections, senate republicans spent a bulk of their time processing judicial nominees supported by democrats overwhelmingly and had a majority of republicans opposed to them. the rhetoric surrounding the nominations process does not match up with reality. i expect that process to continue to be fairly agreeable. you will have hot button controversial supreme court nominee seats and maybe an appellate seat every now and then. almost 80% of the judicial nominations, i expect to see

cooperation. with regards to the filibuster and the nuclear option, chuck schumer is in a difficult spot. if you look at the rhetoric surrounding the georgia election on both sides, somehow it means the difference between lightness and dark between the republic falling into the ocean and not, the civil fact is that is not the case. the expectations are that because democrats have the majority they can do a whole lot of stuff that they, quite frankly, aren't going to be able to do because they don't agree. with regards to the nuclear option, at a minimum, you have to have 50 democrats that want to support and pass the underlying issue and 50 republicans that are opposed. and you have the vice president that ultimately will cast the deciding vote. i'm not sure when you look at these issues what they are. i'm sure it could happen and i expect they might.

but it is not clear what those issues are. host: james wallner with us until the bottom of the hour this morning. if you have questions about how the senate runs in a 50/50 split, now would be a debt -- great time to call. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independence, (202) 748-8002. talk a little bit about vice president kamala harris's goals? guest: the vice president is an extremely important your in the senate. the senate can't pick the speaker. the vice president can sit in the chair whenever he or she wants. vice president harris, under the constitution, has the authority of casting tie-breaking votes. that is extraordinarily important. when the senate deadlocks on an issue, it dies.

you have to have a majority to support something to proactively pass. it is possible for democrats and now why they are considered to be the majority party. this is important with regard to the congressional review act. republicans used this mechanism to a great degree in the last administration. and if you have 50/50 split's in this scenario, you can have vice president kamala harris cast the tie-breaking votes to overturn regulations put in place by president trump and his administration. host: this is linda in mississippi. democrat, good morning. you are up first. caller: you say it doesn't make much difference if they have

agreement when the judges are nominated. mitch mcconnell had the majority and let no one go through unless he wanted them to go through. during the obama years, he did not allow any of obama's judges to go through. he kept it vacant including merrick garland. the democrats would do more than they had been able to do in confirming biden picks if mcconnell had been the leader. host: thank you for bringing up judicial nominations. guest: linda, that's a great point and thank you for making it. there will always be differences. when i say it will continue largely the same, i mean in the broad outlines that the senate will function. mitch mcconnell does not have

the power as majority leader, minority leader, or senator to block judges. the only way you can block a judge from being debated is for senators on that committee to refuse to report that judge. mitch mcconnell does not serve on the judiciary committee. he has no say. he can urge them and influence them and try to convince them to do so, but he ultimately has no power to do so. democrats can move to discharge judges from committee. that is an important power they have and one that democrats did not use with merrick garland. they could have forced the issue. i suspect if they had forced the issue that they would have won that debate because, quite frankly, a majority of republican senators did not agree with the strategy to prevent a vote on merrick garland. it is an important point to make. with the last 50/50 split, there is a power-sharing agreement.

one of the things that they put in this agreement is that if a committee deadlocks, all committees would be split evenly -- if a committee deadlocked on a bill or a nominee, that nominee could be discharged and put on the floor and have an up or down vote on whether or not to debate it. and after four hours of debate, you could not filibuster. it is important because it makes it easier to discharge nominees. combining that with the nuclear option for judicial nominees and executive branch nominees that both democrats and republicans have used, that creates an interesting scenario. it may be a new agreement between mcconnell and schumer. host: nothing we like better than digging through the vast c-span archives. you mentioned after the 2000 election, the 50/50 split.

here is tom daschle at a trent lott sharing news about their power-sharing agreement in early 2001. >> this really comes down to two words. good faith. i hope not only by our actions today but our actions over the course of the next two years, we can demonstrate without equivocation that that good faith was warranted. we face many challenges in the days and weeks ahead. we face many uncertainties. as we face those challenges and those uncertainties, it is my hope that we can look back upon this moment and say if not for the fact we demonstrated good faith today, we could not continue to demonstrate as they arise. >> instead of there being a filibuster next week on what

senator daschle would have offered or the 21st senate filibuster for days or weeks. we are not going to start off that way. we will give it a chance to work. we will be fair and have a good faith effort. i have enjoyed working with tom. it is never easy for either one of us. we have very diverse conferences, both of us. i'm sure his people are not delighted with all the details of it. but i think it's an important part. and maybe some other rule that they should've addressed. as we go along, i think we could've had a good discussion -- i think we've had a good discussion. this is how we will get our work

done. host: on that power-sharing agreement, will we see a similar press conference with chuck schumer and mitch mcconnell? guest: i don't know about a press conference, but i believe that they are going to try to adhere to that template is much as possible. you have two party leaders in negotiations right now, divided conferences. and you need an agreement to make the senate work. incidentally, this is the backdrop of the very contentious presidential election. so there are a lot of similarities between that moment and now. one interesting detail that i think is very interesting with regard to 50-50 senate splits. unlike then, our committees today are virtually not working.

they are not doing much. the senate does not do a lot of legislative business. if you recall when i mentioned an organizing resolution, organizing the chamber means populating the committees. that is important to because the committees are important places where things happen. in today's day and age, the staff and leadership work with leadership and leadership staff behind closed doors to negotiate compromised agreements at the very last minute that are put on the floor. all senators are prevented from offering amendments and they are presented with it. that is that. i'm not sure why a power-sharing agreement is as important as it was in 2001. host: denise out of new york city. democrat, good morning. caller: i have a question. i don't believe that the

impeachment is a waste of time. i understand that, from what i'm hearing, nancy pelosi says that she has the votes. if he is impeached, wouldn't that mean he could not come back in four years and we wouldn't have this problem of dealing with him and his behavior in another four years? guest: the constitution specifies the senate can convict in an impeachment trial. the result of that can be removal from office and if they so choose, they can bar that official from holding future office. to bar a private citizen from holding future office who is not currently in office would be unprecedented. the senate has had to impeachment trials where the officials were no longer an office at the time of the trial. in both of those instances, the officials were not convicted. article two of the constitution

is specific about who is subject to convention -- conviction via impeachment. federal officials. it would be unprecedented and i believe unconstitutional for the senate to bar a private citizen who is not able to be removed from office from running for future office. your point about a waste of time, i don't believe anything the congress does is a waste of time. these are important issues that americans feel deeply about and care passionately about. they want to see them adjudicated and that is why we have a congress, house, and a senate. i think we must step back and ask ourselves, what are the consequences of these decisions if they go in one direction versus another. host: it takes three votes to bar someone from running, the house majority, the two thirds

conviction in the senate, and a vote afterwards on barring him or her from holding future office? guest: correct. the last vote is a simple majority. but this is an important vote -- point to make. the senate can't bar someone that it doesn't first convict. you have to ask yourself, can you remove someone from office who is not currently in office? they don't have the option of going down a menu and say that we want to impeach this person and richard nixon is still president, but we are not going to kick him out of office, he can't run for office in the future. that doesn't make a lot of sense. the constitution is very explicit that it is an option to bar impeached officials that have been removed from office from running in the future. but that is a lower threshold with a simple majority vote. host: texas, republican line.

caller: it is a conservative and libertarian think tank, so i think i should get an objective and non-squishy answer from you. why do elected republicans not push the fact that the president and the republicans did nothing wrong in his speech. c-span, msn, and the mainstream media leave out the whole speech. i don't know why they do that. to the house members that objected to the votes from troubled states even when they have selected their own alternate electors. i heard roy blunt and some other people, they moderate these simple facts. standing tall with a spine and pointing up to the american

people exactly what they did on a constitutional level. i don't understand that. and maybe you have an answer from a conservative libertarian think tank. guest: first, they do things that i would personally disagree with on a policy level. but in regard to this terrible and tragic event last week, my view is that you are right to the degree that using procedures that are authorized under a law that is over 120 plus years old do not themselves create violence. it's when people opt to do violent things that create violence. too much political conflict does not spill over into violence. it's when people make a concerted and conscious decision to resolve their disagreements

in a different way than debate. that is when you see violence. if you look at president trump's speech, it is similar to speeches aoc has given and tea party senators have given. it is how people react. with that being said, if you look at the totality of what was happening, the case against president trump right now is that it is the totality of his denying the election results, the totality of how he has talked about that, how his rhetoric has been delivered over four years in office. i'm not agreeing or disagreeing with that, but i can see how members can look at that in the heat of the moment -- try to put yourself in their shoes. it has to be terrifying to have that happen regardless of if you are mike lee, susan collins, ted

cruz, or anybody else. it's important to remember that these are humans trying the best they can. they are also reacting in the moment. in 20 years, we will have to look back and see what happened and see if we are closer to the mark than not. it's important to not take rash action and not sent -- set new dangerous resident -- precedent like telling officials they can't run for office. we have used the threat of sedition and insurrection to silence debate going back to the beginning of the devout -- of the founding. host: on the democrat line, good morning. caller: calling as a resident of brooklyn where chuck was hours illumined -- our assemblymen. i helped lead forms for him and the local congregation and the

local democratic club before he became a senator. i don't want to add to his burden by asking a question that might put a focus on some areas of contention, but we know he has the left-wing wing of the party trying to press him one direction and a very contentious right wing of the country he is trying to unite within the senate. we have seen the evidence of right wing influence in the insurrection where the confederate flag was brought into the rotunda for the first time in history. it puts a finer point on the fact that trump was put in office by maximizing the advantage of white population states against minority population states. and there is pressure from his left flank about doing something to reform the electoral college so that we are a more democratic country in the eyes of ourselves and the rest of the world.

they don't really view us as a real democracy anymore. one of the reasons is that our math is so byzantine. it lends itself to these kind of conflicts and inequities. many people in black communities and large populations have less of a 3/5 vote that they were supposedly captive for in the 3/5 compromise. my question is, how much, if at all, while he is trying to build a working relationship with mcconnell and republicans across the aisle and while trying to maintain his position with the left flank of his own party, can he raise issues of reforming the electoral college in this term or as majority leader of the senate going forward? host: thank you for the question. guest: first of all, good for you for getting involved.

i wish more americans would get more involved and i think that speaks to the health of our system and that is the solution in my opinion. with regard to the split between liberals and conservatives in the senate and everything in between, -- longer than any other leader and he did and exquisite job. he is often seen as the greatest leader of all time and he saw his john mack is a factory foreman whose job was to direct the production line to produce certain widgets but it was someone who would stand back and facilitate the per dissipation of members in the process, and that is how he was able to pass things like the civil rights act of 1964 when lyndon johnson could not do something similar. the voting rights act of 19 625. robert byrd followed in his footsteps, when this country was having incredible conflict across the country on a whole host of issues, intense conflict, the senate had one of its most productive legislative periods in history.

i may not agree with everything it came out with but the constitution wasn't written to make any one person happy. what i think we need to focus on is how we make sure the senate as an institution stays healthy, ensure it can do the same thing. with regard to the electoral college, i would remind you that the way in which we vote in this country is we have a popular sovereignty but as john marshall tells us, the people vote in states and that is where they are organized. there is no national popular electorate in the sense of one person being elected by everyone. maybe we need to have that, but that is a debate that can be had. i would submit to you that when you have a situation where the majority of the country can vote for one person, it is a lot easier for the country to fall into this cycle, this destructive cycle that the framers were trying to get out of, trying to prevent the tyranny of the majority as well as the tyranny of one person.

you have this very convoluted thing called the electoral college that i think creates and safeguards a space for our politics to occur. there is no one person in this country that has voted -- that is voted for by a minority against the wood -- against the wishes of a majority, in districts and states and counties, it does not exist. there is no person that is elected by minority and electorate we have. there could be reasons to reformat and there are reforms out there and chuck schumer can certainly raise those reforms and help educate americans in the effort to try and have a constitutional amendment, we can have a debate and to be honest, that is what makes this country great and we haven't had those debates in recent years. as someone who supports the electoral college and does not want to see it go away, i would welcome that debate because of think it is always better for us to debate our disagreements and try to resolve our disagreements and adjudicate our concerns. host: james welner -- james

wallner is a senior governance fellow at the r street institute. thank you for being with us. guest: thanks for having me. host: coming up, a focus on the 25th amendment. we will be joined by michigan state university law professor brian kalt. stick around, we will be right back. ♪ >> you are watching c-span, your unfiltered view of government. c-span was created by america's table kill of -- cable to listen companies in 1979. today, we are brought to you by these television companies, provide c-span2 viewers as a public service -- who provide c-span to viewers as a public service. use our website, c-span.org/cor

onavirus, to follow the federal response to the covid-19 outbreak and track the spread with interactive maps, all at c-span.org/coronavirus. >> "washington journal" continues. host: michigan state law professor brian kalt, is back with us. he is author of unable, the limits of section four of the 20 them in mint. professor kalt, explain what section four of the 20 the movement was designed to do. guest: section four is designed to transfer power from the president who is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office to the vice president as acting president, and it is also intended to provide a process for the president to take that power back, if he feels that he is not unable, and there is a complicated process for that to happen. host: i want to show viewers

section four of the 25th amendment. whenever the vice president and a majority of principal officers of the executive department for of such other bodies congress may i law provide. -- that the president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the vice president shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as acting president. brian kalt, what guidance is there to define the term unable? guest: there is not any. the constitution is as in many places, not trying to nail down the definition. it provides a process. you read the first sentence but there are two more talking about it. the president tries to come back and there is a dispute, who decides if he is unable or not, and that is the key. it is like when we have a supreme court nomination. the constitution doesn't say what makes them unqualified, it

just is who decides. in the case of section four, it is the vice president and the cabinet and if the president disagrees, it is two thirds of the house and two thirds of the senate. to keep the president's power away from him, you would need the vice president and the cabinet and two thirds of the house and two thirds of the senate to all on -- to all agree that he is unable and that sets the bar very high. mainly it is for those cases where he is clearly incapacitated like in a coma or something. that is something that would work with just the vice president and cabinet recognizing reality. if the president says he is not unable, then the deck gets stacked pretty heavily in his favor. host: because some of the best things we can do here is read directly from the constitution, here is the 20 for the moment, section four, those other sentences you were talking about. when the president transmits his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall

resume the powers and duties of his office unless the vice president and a majority of the principal officers or of such other body as congress -- as congress may by law provide, -- host: that process, that back in forth, is there a minimal amount of time that can take? guest: a couple important things to note. first i want to make clear because the amendment doesn't, despite all the words used, some people are unclear on this point. when the president declares no inability exists, that for day p -- four day period, the vice president stays in charge. they have four days to reassert his inability.

if they don't, then he takes his power back at the end of the four days. if they do, then it goes to congress, and congress has to assemble if they are not in session. then they have 21 days to decide. if they don't decide anything within 21 days, the president gets his power back. even if each chamber votes, if they don't get two thirds, then the president takes his power back immediately. there is this process that is stacked in the president's favor but the vice president is in charge in the meantime and this late in the term, they might be able to run up the clock because the term would end before the 21 days. if the 20th amendment section four were invoked right now, congress would not need to say anything and the president would still stay out of power until his term ends. host: if you have questions about the 25th ammendment the constitution, give us a call. brian kalt is a michigan state

university professor and wrote a book on the section four of the 20 for them in mint. that is the focus today because on the house floor, democrats will movie resolution calling on the vice president to invoke the 20 for the moment, democrats saying if that doesn't happen within 24 hours, they will move forward with impeachment. phone lines to join the conversation, democrats, (202)-748-8000. republicans, (202)-748-8001. independents, (202)-748-8002. as folks are calling in, professor kalt, why was the 25th amendment added to the constitution in 1967? guest: the original constitution in article two provides if the president is suffering from inability that the vice president steps in. the problem is that article two does not provide any process or standards. who decides, what does inability mean, and it does not specify

that the president would take power back if he recovered. the vice presidents over the years were unwilling to step in, even when the president was completely incapacitated. that happened when garfield was shot and he lingered for 79 days after that. for much of that time, we effectively had no president. when woodrow wilson had a stroke, the same thing. that was intolerable to president eisenhower, when he came in, in the nuclear weapon age. he said we need to make sure there is always somebody at the helm. so he started the process of getting the constitution amendment. after the kennedy assassination when people thought what it if he had lived but not been able to function, we need standards and a process. host: let's chat with a few callers. helen is up next out of california, a republican. caller: good morning. i'm looking at section four, and

there was a lot of wiggle room in the phrase unable to discharge powers and duties of his office. my approach to this, shouldn't the burden of proof be on congress and the democrats of congress who are pushing for this impeachment, to prove they are not staging a coup? what we have been hearing in the media has been the narrative of the democrats. so i'm thinking they are using this invasion of the capital on january 6 to further solidify their narrative. we have not shown a lot of proof that this isn't just their story, that they are pushing on the public. the media has been very pro left and very supportive of the democrats in congress, trying to neutralize the executive branch, by pushing out trump, by invoking this section four.

again, it is a lot of wiggle room. i'm going to hang up, and i would appreciate hearing your response. they need to either prove they are not a coup but my gut feeling is this is a treasonous act, and these people who are pushing for this impeachment are traitors, because it is dissolving the powers of the executive branch, therefore dissolving our government. thank you. host: professor kalt. guest: this highlights an important point about the design of section four. congress is calling for it to be invoked but congress has no formal role in the invocation of the amendment. they only resolve if there is a dispute between the president on one side and the vice president and the cabin on the other. congress can say all at once, but the designers of the amendment wanted invocation to be done by the president's own people, not people who wanted him out already.

the vice president and the cabinet were presumed to be a group that would be loyal to the president, that would not invoke this on the basis of disagreement with how he is doing his job. they would only do it if he was unable to do anything at all. that is the standard, and that natural reluctance was supposed to be a feature of the process. people who want to get rid of president trump and look at the constitution and say here is a way that might work have to realize that this system that section four sets up was designed to be really hard to use, to have the president's own people need to be the ones who kick this off. as far as it being a coup, to even suggest it, i don't see that. there is a process, and if the president's own people agree, then fine. treason is defined very specifically in the constitution. even if this were a coup, it

wouldn't really qualify under that definition. host: this is patricia, democrat from south carolina. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i'm really following the people you have here, the earlier commentators, and they are putting some stuff out there that is bringing the temperature down for me. but i still have the question, even if -- with being a democrat and a conservative democrat from my state, i am just wondering what can we do, now. where is the defense for us? i voted lawfully.

there was no fraud in my state. what can be done, to start healing and make sure that we feel that biden is protected during the inauguration? it just feels like it is unfair that what trump did, this coup d'etat, what he did, there has to be something to come back towards me to say my vote counted. i wish i could get more into the specifics. i'm just going to turn it over. host: professor kalt. guest: even though section four is designed to work best in that situation with the president who is totally incapacitated, it does provide a way and presumably would be used in a situation where the president a sort of running amok, and needed

to be stopped. impeachment takes a long time. the president is in power in the meantime. section four takes immediate effect. in the example in my book, if the president is unhinged and orders they knew some country that insulted him, to stop something like that, section four would work. that is why people were talking about it last week, as things looked like they were spiraling out of control. they thought, depending a what president trump does, we heard reports the cabinet was discussing using the 25th ammendment section four. i think that is why. things settled down, so we didn't see that happen. if things do get out of hand, then it is there for that possibility. impeachment is designed to get rid of a president doing bad things, but it doesn't suspend

his powers in the meantime. impeachment sets the bar pretty high. you can't impeach and remove a president unless substantial members of his own party agree he should be removed. they made section four, the burden even higher because they didn't want this to be used as a way to run around impeachment. if there is a dispute and it goes to congress, you need two thirds in the senate and house. with impeachment, you only need a simple majority. if he challenged the invocation of section four, it would be easier to impeach and remove. you would not use section four unless there was that in the end catastrophic irreversible kind of harm -- that imminent catastrophic irreversible kind of harm. host: tom is our next caller, independent. caller: good morning and thanks for taking my call. my question is, what is the

impact of all of the resignations of the cabinet? does the next person in line get their vote or is there vote no excluded? i also have a point, and it is a little off topic. i have investigated a lot of facebook comments, and there is a lot of automated fake account comments from bots, and there are thousands of them. we worry about people getting radicalized, and a lot of people i know interact with these fake comments. it is easy to prove that the accounts are fake. i wish somebody would start investigating that. it affects both sides, i'm sure. it is easy to find them. i would appreciate an answer to the question. host: thank you for the question. professor kalt, an interesting question coming after chad wolf resigned on monday. now the new acting dhs secretary, peter gaynor, will be

taking over in that department. guest: i get this question more than any other, and in part it is because there is a misperception on people that the entire cabinet or most of the cabinet is acting right now. for most of the presidency, there were one or two, briefly three acting out of the 15 that vote. this is an area where section four doesn't really answer the question. it is not clear from section four, who counts. we know it is not cabinet level people like the chief of staff or the trade representative. it is the 15 core departments defined as executive departments. the ones in the line of succession. if you look at the legislative history, what did congress think it was providing? there is division. on the house side, they said and acting secretary would participate if there was a vacancy, although they are not as clear as to what would happen

if the president fired somebody. -- said no, the acting secretary's would not participate. the important thing to note is if they don't participate, if they are not principal officers of the exact of departments, then they would be taken out of the denominator. what you would need is either, if they do participate, eight out of 15 or if they don't participate and now we have five acting and 10 confirmed, you would need a majority of who is left to confirm them. it would not prevent this from going forward that there are five acting secretaries. you would just need a majority of who is left, if they don't count, and the same majority if they do. there is no quorum requirement or requirement that you need eight votes. it is just a majority of whoever can vote. if there was no cabinet at all, that might be an issue. right now we have 10 confirmed members.

it is still doable. host: just about 10 minutes left with professor brian kalt of michigan state university. his book about section four of the 20 for the 20 for them in mint, unable -- 25th amendment. we will keep taking your calls on that topic until 9:00 a.m. eastern. a note to our viewers exciting the house to come in, although it could be very brief before they recess after doing a small amount of business on the floor, if they do recess briefly, we will come back here and keep taking our calls until our usual time. stick with us through the action on the house floor at 9:00. we will see how long it takes and we could be back with you for phone calls afterwards. until then, your questions about the 20th amendment. this is nicholas from maryland, republican. caller: good morning. it seems to me that there are

three possibilities. one is to run out the clock. one is the 20 for them in mint. the other is impeachment. it would seem that the executive branch is unable to police itself, and the 25th amendment relies on a type of psychological expertise that people can call into question, that the members of the cabinet may not possess. however, with respect to the legislator, it has been pushed around and it needs to be pushed back and if they don't do anything, silence is acquiescence and it will be diminished. for the very reason of pushing back, the legislature needs to impeach. host: professor kalt? guest: this points to an interesting incongruity in what the house is asking for. they are asking if the 25 amendment is not invoked, they will impeach.

it is clear from what senator mcconnell has said that there is no way the senate is going to hold and conclude a trial, even if the two thirds vote to convict is there. he's not going to or be -- she's not going to be removed from office. if the 25 amendment doesn't displace him, then we will impeach, which also won't displace him. there is a bit of a disconnect. there are two different things. the point about psychological knowledge, that points to something else, which is the cabinet may not have the medical expertise or the psychiatric expertise, and so we heard about a few months ago, that pelosi -- set off what in section four talked about, such other body as congress may establish, instead of the cabinet, we could have congress legislate a panel of psychiatrists and doctors and have them be the ones that decide.

it has been 50 years since ratification in congress has never come close to setting up another body like that. if they did, the president could veto it. it would have to be by legislation. even if it passed over the president's veto, which there is not enough time for that anyway, the vice president would still need to sign off. there is no way to completely make this a medical objective psychiatric decision. there is always going to be political and policy judgment at stake. host: that body is not set up through joint resolution and it would have to be through legislation that the president would sign because there has been some confusion on that point. guest: there has been but when the constitution says by law, that means the process for making a law, which is the house, the senate and the president, or two thirds to override a veto. for it to be a law, it has to pass through bicameralism.

host: this is florida -- our next caller is from florida, democrat. caller: good morning. two issues or perhaps even three. one, in order to prevent trump from seeking further office, federal office, it seems it would be necessary for him to be first impeached and then convicted, and then the third vote, which would be majority vote that would bar him from further office. if i remember correctly, there is a law review article, and it may have been you, professor kalt, who wrote it, which suggests that the trial need not take place while the president is in office on the impeachment issue, in which case it has been

suggested that the president be impeached, and that the articles of impeachment be not delivered to the senate for approximately 100 days, to give the incoming administration the opportunity to get important business taking care of, and then have the trial in the senate. assuming that it was a conviction, and we don't know because of the timing, but assuming it's a conviction, it seems likely that if two thirds of the senate voted to convict, it is quite likely that it would also then go to the next step in the majority and bar him from further office. host: professor kalt? guest: yes, i did write a very lengthy article that has been circulating a lot lately for obvious reasons, but back in

2001, i wrote a 50,000 word deep dive into the constitutional history and text and structure and precedent. can you impeach someone who is already gone? it is a very counterintuitive thing, but the evidence when you look at it, there is a lot more to that. in particular, there are precedents, not just the fact that we have impeach people who have lost office, but also the english precedents. that could be done, and the arguments on the other side would be no it can't, and they would have to decide. i think the stronger argument as set out in that long article, which makes the point that the text isn't as obvious as it might look. there is a lot more once you scratch the surface. as for distal of occasion, that

would be the reason to do it. removal and a skull of occasion are the only consequences of an impeachment conviction. if removal is off the table, then you only have disqualification. -- because otherwise, they could always avoid disqualification just by resigning and so it would be a dead letter. there are, however, debates about whether disqualification applies to the presidency. it applies to offices under the united states. the question is, is the presidency in office under the united states? it is a cap look at an argument and i say it would disqualify somebody from the presidency, but there is an argument that it doesn't. we would have to have that debate too. host: professor brian kalt, law professor with michigan state

university. we are respecting the house to come in, any second. it is expected to be a fairly short legislative session before they gavel out, subject to the call of the chair. we will see how long it is. we will talk to viewers afterwards, if it is a fairly short session. professor brian kalt is the author of "unable: the law of politics and the limits of the section four of the 25 amendment ." we appreciate your time, this morning. we will talk to you down the road about the 25 amendment. guest: it was my pleasure, thank you. host: that's going to do it for us. we take you now live, to the house floor for gavel-to-gavel coverage.