night on "the committee -- "the communicators," the former ceo of reddit. >> what we are seeing is a change of heart, where people get to pick --work with people that look like them, that they are most comfortable with, that they are used to working with, they don't want to stop that. it doesn't matter what the numbers are. they will find a way to challenge them. it doesn't matter what the arguments argument they will find a way to challenge them. they don't want to be forced to admit that the system that they were so successful in was actually rigged, that they are not the products of a true meritocracy, a true system where everybody had a fair chance. it is hard to internalize that. we will continue to see pushback, and that is one of the

reasons we need these rules. >> watch "the communicators" tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. spicer, former white house press secretary and the host of a show on newsmax. thank you for joining us. sean: good morning. host: how do you approach being a former member of the administration is taking place this week with the second impeachment trial? sean: i have a show every night at newsmax, so i look at it differently, we have been covering it for a while and will cover it tonight. i look at it from the standpoint of, what are people asking, what are the questions they have, and how can we break it down during that one hour we have every night? host: what are the questions and how do you answer them? sean: i get to ask the questions instead of answering. i inject my own opinion.

i think there are a lot of questions in particular with respect to a former president. the constitution is clear about the purpose of impeachment being for removal of office. if someone is no longer in office then you have to question what the purpose of the proceedings themselves is. tonight we will have alan dershowitz on the show and try to break it down from a constitutional perspective. a lot of times we get lost in political arguments and forget to step back and say the constitution is clear about what the purpose of these things are and the procedures by which they will be held. we get to have a discussion on the show about what the political arguments are and what the constitutional arguments are. the fun part is that you get to look at a lot of the questions that you are getting every day on washington journal and a lot of times that's what i will say. i am hearing a lot about this,

can you break it down for people. it's more of that discussion between other experts political and legal to have a better understanding of issues and politics. host: the question is did the president incite the crowd on january 6, what is your take? sean: i think that is not entirely true in the sense that that is not necessarily the question. the fundamental question is, can you impeach somebody who is no longer in office. the second question is, if so, are those impeachable offenses? are they high crimes and misdemeanors? you have to answer the first question first, are the proceedings relevant for someone who is no longer in office. the constitution clearly says shall be removed from office. if you are no longer in office what is the remedy? host: we will have our conversation with our guest going forward and if you want to

ask our guest questions about his thoughts on impeachment, (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can text your thoughts at (202) 748-8003. you have heard several legal scholars say there is a question within the constitution on whether this is capable for the senate to even start this trial. how would you respond to those? sean: it's interesting. i have heard those arguments from leaguers -- legal scholars that argue that you can do it. there's an interesting argument on their behalf. the constitution says very clearly in article two section four that the officeholder shall be removed from office, that's the exact phrasing, that's the remedy. the question is, if the officeholder is no longer in

office then you have to question. i have read some of the briefings and articles and summations that these scholars claim that you can go through the motions. i have yet to have that discussion, because i don't get how you can make the case. we have a system of criminal justice in this country so that if you are guilty of a crime or suspected of a crime you go through that civil process by which if you feel you have been wronged by somebody you can soothe them for civil damages like money or what have you. then we have impeachment which is a political means of justice so you can remove and officeholder who you feel or someone feels has broken a law or committed high crimes and misdemeanors or treason or all these other things the constitution enumerates. impeachment is a political form of justice. if the president is guilty of criminal acts this is not the

appropriate forum to discuss, because there is no other remedy. you cannot impeach somebody and send them to jail or impose a civil fine of $1 million or $100. those are other forms of proceedings. the question is, if the former president was guilty of something this is not the forum to judge him in. host: i suspect you have looked through the house impeachment managers pretrial motion. as far as the incitement part they write this, those who came to the rally looking for a signal from their president found it in his remarks. rather than calm the crowd or promise to carry on the fight for years to come the overwhelming thrust of the remarks delivered to an armed and angry crowd known to be prepared for violence on his behalf was a militaristic demand that they minus fight the stop at the capitol at the moment. you see statements as far as the evidence that will be brought forth what goes through your mind?

as someone who used to work for donald trump? sean: it's interesting because you can cherry pick comments. donald trump said to go to the capital and protest. he talks about doing this. you cover this on c-span all the time, the demonstrations, the protests, the rallies that occurred in washington, d.c. in a pre-covid world if not weekly or multiple times a week some group gathers on the capitol steps on the national mall and other places in washington, d.c. and supreme court steps to highlight an issue or seek redress from the government. this happens regularly. the question is if you can find these comments and make one case or another. there is clearly in the impeachment managers brief they are making the case that while you look at these elements of the president's speech they point to ask. his defenders will point to

parts of his speech where he told them to make their voices heard and protest at the capital which is a time-honored tradition in america. i think either side can cherry pick a speech and pick out things they like. the thing that is interesting to me and the president's -- donald trump pasta fenders, rand paul brought it up. and you look at the comments from the last cycle that congresswoman maxine waters made where she said you get in the face of trump officials, when you see them make a crowd. when you look at eric holder who said when we go -- those are actions that did discuss violence. i question whether or not the democrat impeachment managers that will make this case are not going to be careful that some words of their own colleagues don't get thrown back into their faces. if you are going to say the

president is guilty for telling people to do this, what do you say to your colleagues who incited violence and told people to get in people's faces. it's a very interesting path they are going down, because it will set an interesting precedent for what is permissible in terms of free speech. host: sean spicer of the trump administration and a host on news masks. you can ask him questions. our first call from eleanor in bedford, massachusetts on the republican announcer: you can find our washington journal segments online. we take you to a live atlanta discussion with for policy experts including the former ambassadors to ukraine and china on the bided and administration's foreign policy strategy. >> mr. putin said he is not going to put american interests first without pushback.