policy issues that impact you. coming up sunday morning, american enterprise institute senior fellow previews the biden administration's policies and challenges. and then former acting cdc director in the bioof bama administration discusss the biden's plans to combat the covid pandemic. be sure to join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, text messages and tweets. >> we're back with american university of history professor alan lichtman who is here to talk to us about the perks presidents get once they leave office. good morning. it's great to be h you. host: many of us know professor lichtman from the election

season where he correctly predicted the outcome of all of the u.s. presidential elections since 1984. but he's not here to talk about how you get into the white house, he's talking to us about what happens to presidents and the perks and benefits they get once they leave. so let's get into it. what type of benefits are presidents entitled to once they leave office? guest: until the former presidents act of 1958, the answer was nothing. there were no perks and benefits afforded once a president left the white house. andrew carter at one point offered to endow a pension fund for former president's but that never got off the ground. in 1958 there were a couple of former president to live like herbert hoover, who was a successful is this man did not need help, but harry truman was struggling, financially.

that was one motivation for the passage of the former president act, which was also amended during the obama administration. and a former president gets a lot of benefits. lifetime secret service protection for himself and herself as the spouse. a pension, which now amounts to about to $221,000 a year, no small amount of money for us ordinary folks. maybe a drop in the bucket for someone like donald trump. you get office space, assistance and reimbursement for certain kinds of travel. not personal travel, not travel for pleasure, but travel that

has to do with your semi official role as a former president of the united states. you can also decline secret service protection, it's a little tricky. you get a million dollars for security and travel year and $500,000 for one's spouse. young children up to 16 also get secret service protection. but donald trump did something extraordinary. as you would expect donald trump , he did not follow the letter of the law but ordered for six months before exiting the door, secret service protection for his four adult children. which will be extremely expensive because they have expensive travel. it could be there traveling to

trump properties, in which case, once again, taxpayer dollars are going into trump's pocket. he also did something which i think is never been done before, at least to my knowledge. i hate to state a negative, he ordered secret service protection for that time for three of his former aides. that is something we have not seen before, steven mnuchin, his former treasury secretary mark meadows, robert o'brien, his former national security advisor. so even out the door, trump a spending government money in an unprecedented way. just as he did going to his properties hundreds of times during his actual term in office. host: how did we get to having a former president act. what was the idea behind it?

we think of former president's being relatively well-off, why did congress think that they needed a former president act? guest: because of harry truman. he did not start rich, he was a former have a -- or. a man of extremely modest means but not destitute. he left no white house and moved into the old family home. he did eventually get a book deal which got him a fairly significant amount of money, but this was somebody who could really benefit from post presidential perks because unlike many presidents, he did not have the means to finance in any significant way his own post presidential life. so donald trump can thank democrat harry truman for the

perks he might or might not get as a former president. host: let remind our viewers that they can join in on the conversation. we are opening up our regular lines,47 -- for democrats (202) 748-8000. for republicans (202) 748-8001. for independents (202) 748-8002. keep in mind you can text at (202) 748-8003. we are always reading on social media on twitter and facebook. professor lichtman, exactly how do you calculate the pension of the u.s. president? president trump did not take a salary during his time in the white house, how will they calculate his pension? and pensions before this last administration? guest: it makes no difference whether or not he took or did

not take a salary. john f. kennedy did not take a salary either. that has nothing to do the calculation of the pension. it's based on the fraction of the present salary, whether the president takes that salary or not, trump i assume could decline the pension. i doubt he will because he's facing some real financial challenges as opposed presidents, including problems with his business, his brand, hundreds of millions of dollars in debt coming due. and the pension i believe now is about $220,000. that's a substantial pension for former president. host: doesn't matter how the president leaves office? when they get those perks? for example president nixon resigned, did he get the same

perks as the other presidents? or do you have to leave the presidency having not decided to run for reelection or being defeated or serving two terms? guest: under the strict letter of the law, you get the pension after leaving the white house except in the singular circumstance of having been removed under impeachment. which raises the extremely interesting question for donald trump. apparently, according to recent news reports, he's going to be tried in the senate on the houses is a singular article of impeachment, incitement and insurrection getting on february 9. now, if he's acquitted, there's no issue that he gets all of the perks of his post-presidency.

but there's an interesting legal question, i'm not a lawyer, so take it for what it's worth, but there's an interesting legal question as to what happens if he gets convicted? does he lose his post presidential perks? technically, according to the law, probably not, because the law says removed by impeachment. donald trump, even if he's convicted in february, would not have been removed by impeachment, because the trial took place after he already left office. but my understanding of the law is that it might violate the intent of the law. it's too technical, the intent of the law will certainly to say if you are a disgraced president found guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, you certainly do not deserve a pension and all

the other perks. but that might have to be hashed out in the courts in the unlikely event that trump convicted by the senate. which is a long shot. presuming all senators vote it would take 17 republicans to reach the two thirds majority necessary for conviction. at least at the moment that seems unlikely. host: doesn't matter how much money former presidents can make after they leave office? we know that a lot of the former, at least in my area get these big book deals and speaking tours and can make millions on their own without needing presidential perks. does that go into the calculation at all? when it comes to defining their pension and perks? guest: not on my reading of the law. a former president can make as

much money as they can through lectures, book deals, or in trump's case, the operation of his is an as is. remember, he did not invest himself from 500 businesses. not all of them active, under the trump organization. he still owes those businesses -- owns those businesses, he can still operate them and make money from those businesses. as i read the law, in no way is that affecting his post presidential perks. host: let's let some viewers join in on this conversation. let's start with cletus, from genoa, west virginia on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. i believe he should be impeached and not have any benefits. i'd like to see one other thing,

-- host: oh turn your tv down. but please keep going. caller: can you hear me? host: yes, go ahead. caller: he ought to be impeached, and not get any benefits at all, he should be prosecuted for everything done in every state, and i feel sorry for a lot of people who believed his lies and are now facing prison terms. guest: cletus raises an interesting point about post-presidency. whether or not a president can be indicted for prime during his or her term is an unsettled question. there is guidance in the u.s. department of justice which says a president cannot be indicted for crime or prosecuted or tried while in office. that's a guideline.

there was no definitive supreme court pronouncement on that because no president has ever been indicted while serving. but it is certainly my understanding that once a president has left office, a president certainly could be indicted for crimes committed while in office and before he entered office provided the statute of limitations has not run. a president could be indicted for federal crime and state crime. we know that's a possibility for former president trump, who apparently is being investigated by federal prosecutors and for sure by prosecutors in the state of new york. host: we have a question from one of our social media followers. we have touched on the little bit but i want you to go back to

it. the person wants to know, doesn't impeached president still receive the perks and benefits. so we know president trump was impeached, but never convicted. so let's take it both ways. as an impeached president, does he get the benefits? but if the future president is impeached and convicted, what happens to the benefits? guest: impeachment is like a charge in a regular criminal case. it's not a conviction. a president like clinton who was impeached, but not convicted under the law is still entitled to all of the perks because the law says as a former president you are entitled to the perks except when you are removed by impeachment. you are only removed if you are

convicted in a senate trial and there is a separate vote on removal once you are convicted. that requires only -- excuse me, there would be a separate vote on if you could serve again and if you could ever be in a federal office again. that's another perk you would lose if you were convicted and removed and the vote came to say you could not hold a federal office again. that element of the constitution has never been put in play for a president because no president has been convicted. it has been put in play for judges who were federal officials who are also subject to impeachment. but as i explained, there is an ambiguous situation with respect to a possible conviction, which is unlikely for former president trump. the law does not contemplate

what would happen if you are tried and convicted for high crimes and misdemeanors after you have left office because the letter of the law says you don't get your perks if you are removed from the presidency. but technically, even if trump was convicted. that conviction would not remove him because he's already left the presidency at the expiration of his term, a few days ago on january 20. but there is at least an argument that the intent of congress was that a president who was convicted of high crimes and misdemeanors should not be entitled to the perks of the post-presidency. but the framers did not seem to have contemplated a situation which is obviously never occurred before, and that's a

president to his tried after leaving office. host: let me get some clarification let's assume that the senate does convict former president trump of impeachment. does that automatically ban him from running for office again for a federal position? or do they have to take another step to keep him from running for office? or is it automatic? guest: if not automatic, they would have to take a second vote to bar him from ever holding federal office, which obviously needs he could not run again for president. and unlike the vote for conviction, which requires a two thirds vote, that second vote only requires a majority of the senate.

it is highly likely that were donald trump to be convicted of the high crimes and misdemeanors of incitement and insurrection that the senate would also go ahead and bar him for life from holding federal office. as i mentioned, that is obviously never been applied to a presidential trial because no president has been convicted. but it has applied to judges convicted in a senate trial. judges are subject to the same constitutional impeachment and trial process as presidents with a few exceptions, such as uniquely in a presidential trial, the chief justice presides. it's a question as to whether or not in this case, because trump is no longer in office, whether or not chief justice john roberts will preside, and if not, who will? host: let's talk to mike,

calling from beaverton, oregon, on the republican line. caller: good morning. my question is, it seems to me that things seem to have shifted lately from american justice to english? we seem to be running a parliamentary system here. if the house is the majority of the opposition, than the opposition can get the person outcome is that the new policy now? guest: no no, the house cannot get the president out. all the house can do is charge the president with a high crime and misdemeanor who votes on

articles of impeachment. that is not the president out. you then after impeachment have a trial in the senate and it requires a two thirds vote of those senators voting to get the president out. so we don't have a parliamentary system read it's a very high bar that has never been reached to actually out a president. host: you brought a couple of seconds ago and i like to delve into. the entire impeachment system seems to have been set up for active presidents holding office . we are dealing with an impeachment process with a former president, does that mean that all of the constitutional safeguards in the system are still in place? like the chief justice is supposed to oversee the trial, you have these two votes, one to

convict and want to prevent from holding office, or all of those parts of the impeachment system still in play now that we are dealing with a former president being on trial instead of the current president? guest: there is precedent for former officials being tried for impeachment, ulysses s grant had a secretary of war in the 1870's who was caught up in a scandal in the grant administration. even though he had resigned, he was still impeached and tried by the senate when he was no longer in office. all of the same procedures and safeguards and impeachment trial took place in the case of the former secretary of war was acquitted, so there was no issue and so there was no issue of whether he should be barred from

ever again holding federal office. if trump has tried all of the usual safeguards of impeachment trial, this would be in place. and the only issue that might -- and we don't know the resolution of this would be who might preside over the trial. host: if chief justice job -- if the chief justice decides he does not want to be in charge, who does that fall to? guest: the senate would have to decide, and who is the president of the senate? kamala harris. i don't get would be appropriate for her to preside, but it would present a thorny legal and constitutional question. i certainly hope the chief justice job -- roberts decides to preside or we might be facing a big mess. host: let's go back to the phone

lines, in kentucky on the independent line, brat, good morning. caller: good morning to you -- brad, good morning. caller: good morning to you. i think this is being used to overall hurt american democracy. it's pretty ridiculous to impeach trump now that he's gone . we go back and look at clinton, we know more about him and his relationship with epstein. and bush and the torture used under his administration. barack obama used drones to kill an american citizen extra judicially. if we look at nancy pelosi, the last week she tried to use the 25th amendment to upset the order of power. she tried to talk to millie to get the nuclear codes out of

trump's hands, that's the sitting president. she told 60 minutes that she had no idea what russia had on the president two years after the mueller report which said that there was nothing that russia had. and we just learned last night that john roberts said that she wanted the machine guns mounted during the inauguration. so i would like the professor to speak to if he so believes, that this is being used -- this is the first time we have ever had it go back -- this would turn us into the banana republic where we prosecute former administrations and persecute -- if you like to speak to this. i think it's a bad step in this is what they are trying to do to us. guest: i'm not a comment -- you called -- called on the

independent line but gave us a bunch of republican talking winds which i will not comment on. but i will say this, democrats in the house did not choose the timing on this impeachment. i will repeat, the democrats in the house did not choose the timing of this impeachment. it was donald trump who triggered the timing of the impeachment with his own actions. donald trump likes to deflect and distract and doesn't take responsibility for anything, but even mitch mcconnell, the most loyal republican i have observed in my many years of observing politics agreed that trump had committed impeachable offense in inciting a riot. the timing of the result of trump's actions, not the result of the decisions of anyone else. host: you talked about this

earlier in our conversations, you watched the post story reported that president trump had extended post presidential secret service protection to his four adult children and two spouses and three key officials leaving government service. none of whom would have been entitled to secret service text and. can the secret service protected children and such have -- have this protections rescinded? if so, how? guest: that's an interesting question. we are in uncharted territory and i am not a lawyer so i cannot give you a legal opinion. i don't think congress is going to pass a resolution to rescind that. and i don't think president biden is going to try to rescind it by executive order.

trump did it by executive order so conceivably president biden could undo it by executive order but i don't think that's can it be the case. but reach into your pocket because you are paying for this. and the secret service for trump's children to travel a lot is going to be incredibly expensive. even in the six-month period it will amount to millions of dollars. host: let's talk to steve, in ohio, on the republican line on -- on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. to move the conversation to the perk side, when the professor mentioned harry truman and that was the initiation of the presidential perk, the president is a powerful position and all.

and it might be nice that they were thinking of harry and his need to get some additional benefits based on need for him. presidents who are obviously rich and do not need to be given even the salary, maybe if the perks could be based on need rather than a formulaic thing up with the president earns -- and if they do not take the money, why should they have a pension? but the one thing rather than this impeachment stuff i want to go back to that also gets to the egregious behavior over the years is, well, if you want the perks, give us your tax returns. we want to know what you earned to run for president.

trump was the one that did not ever disclose his tax returns. i would think they should require that presidential candidates disclose their tax returns and if they do so, you know what they need in terms of support beyond the security support and the pension could be calculated based on need. host: go ahead and respond, professor lichtman. guest: there is obviously some justice in what steve said. having taxpayer go to former presidents, as rich as both bush and donald trump, but that gets into very murky and complicated territory. it would be a bit demeaning, you know, to try to assess the need of a former president. it is just too much and too

complicated. we have this multitrillion dollar budget and we are talking a couple hundred thousand dollars. it is never going to happen. as far as the other point, i am a big exponent of transparency in government and i absolutely agree. maybe we shouldn't tie it to pensions or perks, but i think it would be great to have a law requiring, to be on the ballot, you have to release your tax returns. host: here is a question i have not run across yet and i want to bring it to you because i'm also interested. professor lichtman, who pays for presidential libraries? from design and construction to keeping the doors open. is there any benefit to the living president or heirs. is that a presidential perk or something completely different? guest: that is not in the former presidents act.

some raise private money for the building, maintenance of their presidential libraries. donald trump, of course, always talks about this in grandiose terms and talked about raising $2 billion in florida alone for his presidential library. we will wait and see whether that comes into play. presidential libraries are relatively recent to my recollection. the first was the herbert hoover library. a rather modest one in iowa. i did some research there and it was quite a trip but it is a terrific library. host: one of the perks they do get is office space and funding. can you discuss for us the office expenses that former presidents get? what is the point of getting ex-pence for an -- getting

expense for an office? guest: they should be provided office space and staff assistance to carry out functions. they are not fully private persons. they are semiprivate, semi-official after leaving office. some presidents have been tasked with official duties voluntarily. herbert hoover for example under truman, even though he was republican and truman was a democrat, ran the hoover commission on the organization of the federal government. that was before office space was granted. although hoover was plenty rich

enough to take care of himself. by the way the president's adult children, eric, ivanka, and don junior are rich enough to provide their own security. host: if you are curious to know what the presidents are spending on office space, roll call found this information from congress.gov. we are paying $542,000 for obama's office, $513,000 for bill clinton's office, $500,00's dallas office. guest: they can have offices anywhere they want. host: former presidents can choose to put them anywhere, i

assume, in the united states they want? guest: that is correct. president trump could have his office in florida presuming he gets the benefits. which i think is likely. host: let's go back to the phone lines and go to steve calling from wake forest, north carolina on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. donald trump should not be removed from office. he is already out of office. he should not be impeached. john roberts probably will not even show up especially from that cnn not see you have -- n azi you have -- host: we are going to cut that off right there. next up we have nancy.

caller: i'm glad you cut that guy off. the guy from kentucky talked about president clinton. the president not being able to be indicted, you said it was a guideline? i heard it was a memo. is that the same thing? guest: same thing. caller: another quick thing is president carter, does he have office space? but my main point is everyone says trump did not take a salary. i think the salary is $40,000 per year? guest: about that. caller: i saw $151 million of taxpayer money was spent to send him to the golf course. if you take the $400,000 -- $151

million and divided by $400,000, he is a con man. he has ripped the taxpayers off for millions. as far as his children, ivanka and jared, in one year they made $82 million sitting down the hall. i am a retired federal worker and i worked really hard, 21.5 years, and when i was eligible for social security at 62 somehow congress -- and i do not know when it happened -- but they decided because i was getting social security, my pension went from $80,000 to $10,000 -- $18,000 to $10,000.

host: go ahead and respond before we run out of time. guest: the caller is right. a letter money was poured into trump properties through -- a lot of money was poured into trump properties through social security. let me make it clear. what he did was not illegal. you may not like what he did and that is your opinion, and a lot of people have that opinion, but he did not break the law even with 300 golfing trips to his property. if he goes to his properties or his children go to his properties and money comes in from secret service and taxpayers, that is not illegal. as the law was amended under the

obama administration, one thing the president would not lose, even if he was convicted after leaving office, would be secret service protection. host: we spent a lot of time talking about the benefits former presidents get. but before you go, are there any benefits for former vice presidents? are there any benefits specifically for former first ladies? guest: former first ladies get secret service protection and former vice presidents. get secret service protection as well. if a president declines secret service protection, will get $1 million and the former first lady would get $500,000. host: let's see if we can squeeze in a couple more quick calls. gloria is from maryland on the democratic line.

caller: good morning. god bless america and god bless c-span. i appreciate this discussion. i am an 83-year-old, totally blind gospel preacher who is also an activist. i probably look at this from a slightly different point of view. trump asked a long time ago -- i am also black -- what do you have to lose? i lost three children, a house, and, for a brief time, my voice. but i want to point this out, america. trump is going to need his civil service protection because apparently those crooked people who followed him did not realize -- trump is not normal. i will not go into that.

i am a pretty well-educated counselor though. we should learn from this disaster. go back to the days when character mattered. america put into office -- not by all those line numbers trump claims. 2016 he lost the popular vote. mitch malarkey was lying. host: quickly respond before we run out of time. guest: i think it is quite right and proper, particularly in this perilous age, that every former president gets secret service protection. i support that part of the law that would say even if trump got convicted -- very unlikely -- he should still be entitled to secret service protection. host: do we have any idea at this point if there is any move

to change any of the presidential perks? is that something a sitting president would have to do or would it have to be a new law passed by congress? guest: it would not necessarily have to be a brand-new law. but the former presidents act is an act of congress. it cannot be changed unilaterally by a president. you would not have to have a new law, but you could have amendments like you had during the obama administration. and you could have congress and the president sign an amendment that could deal with the situation of what would happen if a president was tried and convicted after the president left office. again, something that was not contemplated at the time the former presidents act was written or amended. host: let's see we can squeeze in one more person.

that will be chris from silver spring, maryland on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. it appears the wrong guy is being impeached. there are no immaculate elections, but there are videos attesting to fraud. i think there was mass dereliction of duty at all levels. urban areas, their votes were appropriated by fake votes. people had all sorts of time to plan to disrupt the event. thank you. guest: all of those claims made were litigated in the courts. they were rejected you nana unanimously by judges, many of whom were appointed by

donald trump himself. trump had the opportunity, as he should in our system, to make legal challenges and, through the normal course of events, that was rejected. his own attorney general, his own chief of elections security, both said there was no widespread fraud as did republican and democratic local officials in every state. the republican officials in the state of georgia did not rig the election for joe biden. on those same ballots in lots of states republicans did extremely well. it is time to put the bed this idea that this was a stolen election. our system dealt with it and our system unanimously rejected it. host: we would like to thank allan lichtman, distinct

professor of history at american university. by the way, author of a new book out this january "repeal the second amendment: the case for a safer america." >> everyday we are taking your calls live on the air on the news of the day and discussing policy issues that impact you, coming up sunday morning, american enterprises talks to daniel placa who previews the biden administration's foreign policy priorities and challenges. then the former acting cdc director in the obama administration discusses the biden administration's plan to combat the book -- covid-19 pandemic. watch washington journal live at 7:00 sunday morning and be sure to join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, text messages, and tweets.

>> by the nominees gina raimondo and denis mcdonough will be on capitol hill next week for their confirmation hearings, tuesday at 10:00 eastern, rhode island governor gina raimondo, commerce secretary nominee testifies before the commerce committee and wednesday former white house chief of staff dennis emma nominated for secretary of veterans affairs testifies before the senate veterans affairs committee. watch the confirmation hearings live on c-span, on c-span, on-demand at c-span.org, or listen on the c-span radio app. >> earlier today, simone sanders, spokesperson for vice president kamala harris spoke with reporters outside the white house. >> what is the vice prede