congress and use the interactive gallery of map to follow the cases in the u.s. and worldwide. go to www.c-span.org /coronavirus. >> coming out today, a house transportation subcommittee looks at how covid-19 is affecting the maritime industry. that is live at 11:00 a.m. eastern. at 9:00 a.m. on c-span2, a hearing on the president's cousel power and when it can be used. then at 1:00 in the afternoon, opening arguments begin for the second senate impeachment trial of former president donald trump. and on c-span3, a confirmation hearing for white house budget director nominee, neera tanden. that starts at 9:15 a.m. eastern. coming up this morning, john malcolm of the heritage foundation of -- and elizabeth wydra join us to preview the

senate impeachment trial of former president donald trump. later, tom daschle and trent lott talk about their power-sharing agreement and the challenges facing the current congress. washington journal is next. ♪ host: good morning, it is the washington journal for february 9. the senate starts the second impeachment trial of former president trump 1:00 this afternoon. you can watch on c-span2 and follow along on c-span networks and are free c-span radio app. today's session will focus on if the impeachment trial is constitutional. the remainder of the week, impeachment managers and the defense team will make their cases on the charge of incitement. here is how you can call us to express your thoughts on the second impeachment trial. if you support it, (202) 748-8000.

if you oppose it, (202) 748-8001 . you can also text us at (202) 748-8003. post on our twitter feed and post on facebook, too, at facebook.com/c-span. there will be several events to watch out for that you can see on c-span. starting at 1:00 this afternoon, as far as today's session, the focus will be on the constitutionality of the trial and that is where the house impeachment managers and the president's team will make their case. moving onto wednesday, you will start seeing presentations from both those sites, up to 16 arguments -- 16 hours of arguments per side being slated for these debates from the arguments of the impeachment managers and the president's defense team. there may be a request for a debate and vote on witnesses, that is yet to be seen. no trials planned for saturday.

it could move into next week, if not wrapped by this week. that is what to expect. how you can view today, if you want to follow along, gavel to gavel interruptions, you can do that best on c-span2 if you plan to watch it. follow along on your computer on c-span.org. if you are on the go, download our radio app, you can listen along their -- there. the folks on the hill talk about the impeachment managers and what they plan to present as far as making an emotional case as the headline suggests. the writer saying, they will argue that his instructions to fight like hell incited followers to storm the capital. the managers are respected to present video clips of insurrection of attacking police, capitol police officer brian sicknick died after injuries. they are likely to play audio

from the president's phone call asking georgia's secretary of state to find enough votes to flip the state in trump's favorite. an episode mentioned in the article passed by the house last month. the atlanta journal-constitution reporting this morning that george is opening up its own case, taking a look at that very phone call. again, that is from the folks at the hill. when it comes to the president's team, they will do a couple of things today, starting with this idea if it is constitutional to even engage in this activity today. the washington post reporting that the attorneys for missile -- for mr. trump have been shown to say that the president was exercising his free-speech rights and questioning the results, the attempt of the house to transmute mr. trump's free speech under the first amendment into an impeachable offense cannot be supported and convicting him would violate the constitution the senate swears to uphold. they submitted that -- those filings on monday.

if you want to read through those filings from the impeachment managers and the president's defense team, we have a special section on our website at c-span.org where we have posted those documents. if you want to read up on that leading up to the event today at 1:00, you can see all of that at c-span.org. in this hour, we will ask you to comment on the start of the second impeachment trial today, (202) 748-8000 if you support impeachment. (202) 748-8001 if you oppose it to your -- if you oppose it. ray starts us off, he says he opposes it. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. yes, i oppose this impeachment procedure because, first of all, i saw the entire speech made and he said to simply, he said -- he

said peacebly. i placed the blame on those who did the action, not on trump because they made the decisions to do that. trump said peacably, yes, he said fight like hell. if i go to a sporting event and i root for my team and if i stay, fight like hell, am i inciting violence? host: that is ray in north carolina. that speech from january 6 also available on our website. john in milwaukee, wisconsin who supports impeachment. caller: yes, i support impeachment. i support also conviction because we have to send a message. we have to send a message to the country and also to the world and we have to let everybody know that there are some things that you cannot get away with

because if trump is allowed to get away with this, you have future leaders that are watching this and they figure, ok, if trump can get away with it, then guess what, i'm going to do the same thing too and nothing is going to happen to me. and the next time it happens, they may be successful. if we want to have a country for our kids and our grandkids, which the republicans are always saying, we have to think about our kids and our grandkids. i hope they are thinking about this moment for the future of their kids and grandkids and they need to convict because we need to let people know, if you try to overthrow our government, there will be severe consequences. thank you. host: steve in california who opposes impeachment. good morning. caller: i oppose it. president trump did so much for the black community, they rewarded him with 3%, that tells

me more about trump than about the racism in the community. host: what does that mean for impeachment specifically, as far as you opposing it? caller: what did you say? host: why do you oppose impeachment? caller: because i think it is media driven. the democrats in defense team are left. that is the reality. trump got ripped off in this election, everybody knows it. i am embarrassed for the left and the liberal democrats. they are really sickening. i think america got just served -- disserved. host: what do you think about the charges that the patient managers plan to make? caller: the democrats are all about just power. again, it is media-driven.

they want the democrats to win, they are part of the offense of team of the left. host: barney is next from florida, a supporter of this impeachment process. good morning. caller: as a black man, trump ain't do nothing for me peter he is an embarrassment to the whole country. host: why do you support impeachment? caller: the man is a criminal. if that had been barack obama, you all would have impeached him last year. host: let's stick to the topic of the president. why do you support impeachment of former president trump? caller: he is a criminal? host: how so? caller: inciting a riot, telling lies, the trick he did in georgia trying to take the black votes. black people cannot vote these days? host: why do you think the

president's actions equal incitement? caller: he incited the riot. they planned this six months ago. there is no way trump is going to win second -- win a second term. he barely got by the first term. host: let's hear from joe in georgia, also a supporter of impeachment. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to add something else that i have not heard anybody talking about. all the politicians, particularly the senators who have received money and donations, campaign contributions from ex-president trump should recuse themselves from voting because they should not have a right to vote if they received money from him. host: why is that? caller: it is like bribing somebody.

if somebody has been supporting me and now i have to vote against him, it would be very difficult for me to vote against somebody. when somebody gives you money, they usually have restrictions on it and you have to go along with them or they are going to reveal, you have been compromised. host: why are you convinced senators have been influenced to this way? caller: there has been all kinds of reports in the press of how he has been giving money to so many politicians, republicans and democrats. that is essentially bribing these people. he probably took it off his income tax, it is public knowledge who received what and how much. we should easily be able to find out who received this money and they should not be allowed to vote. host: that is joe in georgia. just to give you a sample of the

briefs filed on both sides by the impeachment managers and the president's defense team, this is the partial from the pretrial brief of fibroid sevens of the president's legal team saying this impeachment proceeding was never about justice, instead, this was also -- only a selfish attempt by democratic leadership to prey upon the feelings of horror and confusion that fell upon all americans across the entire political spectrum after seeing the destruction of the capital on january 6 i a few hundred people. instead of acting to heal the nation, speaker of the house and her allies have tried to harness the chaos of the moment for their own political gain. again, that is the pretrial brief, the pretrial brief of the impeachment managers on fed rate seventh -- on february 7, it said this, his incitement against the united states government which disrupted the peaceful transfer of power is the most grievous constitutional

crime ever committed by a president. there must be no doubt that such conduct is categorically unacceptable. the house will establish at trial the president merits convictions and disqualification to hold any office of honor. again, all of those documents are on our website at c-span.org , if you want to read them there before the start of today's event at 1:00 this afternoon, eastern standard. greg in texas who opposes impeachment, go ahead. caller: the accountability, people have choices and have their own consequences. you cannot cite one person for saying one thing and now that person who said it is at fault. all kinds of other democrats have been punished for doing worse than what he did. he had freedom of speech.

they did wrong. that is bull. host: mr. trump's rhetoric does not play any factor into this? caller: well, because he said something, he told them to go do it, they had no choice to go do it. host: the rhetoric did not have a role in this? caller: it has no matter who said what, people still choose to do what they choose. if you are saying that they don't have a well, that somebody told them to go do something, therefore they don't have a will to do it themselves and make their own choices, they are robots run by politicians, that is ridiculous. trump didn't incite nothing. host: let's hear from robert in new york, a supporter of impeachment. caller: good morning. host: good morning, go ahead. caller: i support impeachment because there are a lot of different moving parts.

there are representatives involved. the arizona january 6 rally. donald trump told the proud boys to standby. host: how does that relate to today's events and the events of january 6? caller: when you tell a far right militant group to standby and then this happens, there is a digital footprint of republicans like steve bannon and we don't know all of his involvement. i was a journalist in d.c. the one thing i know is we don't know enough. but i do know donald trump has been stirring the pot. that is what he is famous for. host: if we don't know enough, did the impeachment managers rush this along too soon? caller: we are going to see.

we will see. host: that is robert in new york. let's hear from jim in south dakota who opposes this effort. caller: how are you doing, thanks for taking my call. i think -- i believe there is a lot of corruption going on in politics on both sides. i believe this is a power position. they want to impeach trump because they know how dangerous he really is. how do you impeach a guy who was a regular citizen right now? they want to impeach him because they know he cannot go back into office because they are afraid they will come back and pull out the real truth and how corrupt the democrats really are. host: what exactly are they afraid of? caller: they are afraid of him coming back and getting power back because it is all about power. if he comes back, they know they

are going to lose their butts because they are so corrupt, it is not funny. host: he did not see that happen in the previous four years? caller: i have seen it with a lot of president's. trump tried to bring the country back. that is why he is so loudmouth because the corruption is insane. he is like, come on, let's get it together, let's do the right thing, let's protect the country, let's get our constitution back to your -- constitution back. host: since you described the previous president as a loudmouth, do you think he is responsible? caller: everybody is responsible for what they said, but i don't think he is responsible for the riot, whatever happened at the capital. people want to talk about antifa

and that organization and what black lives matter, the organization really is. host: why do you think the president is not responsible? caller: people saying, it is skin color, i am tired of the race card. host: why do you say the president is not responsible for what he says? caller: here is the thing, when he was saying what he was saying before everything was going on, there was already stuff going on. it was not that he was saying it and all of a sudden it happened. it was already happening before he was talking. the media takes that out of -- as a directive and there was stuff going on when he was talking about things. host: that was jim in south dakota. michael saying, is dangerous as

it was, impeachment is possibly constitutionally infirm, runs crosswise and undercuts president biden. i think this is another error coming from the house speaker. section three of the 14th of them is a much better route to get the job done. this is from tennessee, america must have this to move on as a country. from florida, this second attempted impeachment is as illegitimate as the first one. there was no basis for starting it, just vindictive democrat politics. they are afraid trump will rise again. and then, jeffrey from nevada, president trump should be impeached because he told a lie to this country that got people killed including police officers . he did not tell the truth. again, texting as is a way that you can give your thoughts about today's impeachment process, (202) 748-8003 is how you do

that. david, a supporter of this impeachment process from detroit, michigan. hello. caller: good morning, pedro and thank you for washington journal. i have been an avid listener and i have called in several times in the past. i have listened to the rhetoric and some of it really borders on repugnance he. it is repugnant to hear some of these, i guess they are republicans who call with all of this miasma and a call in and it is like, my only dissent is for me to do the what about-isms. you cannot conflate with january 6 and through in that mix black lives matter because black lives matter had nothing to do with that. i am from michigan. i watched appallingly as they stormed the state capital, ok?

that was their blueprint to come in, they were emboldened to come in to storm the capital. host: what makes you say that? what convinces you that one act spurred on the other? caller: think about it. they stormed the capital in the height of a pandemic. a few of them that saw anything that looks like justice, some of these people are still roaming the streets. i am quite certain that a few of them were identified being in washington on january 6. host: a previous caller made the case that people should be responsible for their actions. would you say that is the people that should be cited on this one? caller: absolutely, without question. there is no doubt in my mind that they scoured the united states and they should make

examples of these people. host: as far as the impeachment process, why do you support it? caller: why do i support that? because he was the lightning rod. he was the conductor of that. he basically did his dog whistling, pedro. people understand the doublespeak, it is not take anybody with a lot of education and people that represented, these were not educated people. these were people that, they were a bucket of deplorables. host: randy in wisconsin who opposes this effort, go ahead. caller: number one, the fbi knew about this, all of these people coming and were warned the day before. security at the white house, at the capital was not anywhere near what it was supposed to

the. they reported on that. who is responsible for security at the capitol? nancy pelosi. she was ready for this. she wasn't even around when this happened. one other thing, you said that his the presidents rhetoric -- i have not seen that this morning, have you played his whole statement? it is freedom of speech, you have to remember that when you watch it. when he said, be a patriot, never once did he say violence. host: you are saying that what he said did not incite people? caller: not in any way. you have to compare it to a lot of other speeches that he has made, trump has made, barack obama has made. host: but as far as the president himself, the statement

he made after the election and the legitimately -- legitimacy of the election, does this have to be considered? caller: they will consider it all. every little word that the president said will be thrown at him. if they can impeach a president after he is out of office, they ought to go back and impeach president washington for having slaves. think what this is going to open up if something like this goes forward. host: randy in wisconsin. people can express their thoughts on one of two lines. if you support impeachment, (202) 748-8000. if you oppose it, (202) 748-8001 . randy's first point is our security, there is a story about -- by the wall street journal about the capital warnings, at least a security at the capitol at the time. you can find it online, there

are many reasons why the mob was able to reach the capital and overwhelmed a security force made up of members of the capitol police. mayor muriel bowser on january 5 urged federal agencies not to send additional forces without consulting local police after racial injustice protests in which heavily armed security forces clashed with protesters outside lafayette square near the white house last summer. capitol police declined pentagon offers of national guard reinforcements ahead of time. a small group of guard troops were deployed to augment other parts of the city. the ability of law enforcement to mobilize against terrorist attacks emanating from a broad struggles to confront violent domestic extremism which the fbi have identified as among the most serious terror threats facing the country. both the fbi and chs said they did not issue an alert nationwide because they had no

specific credible threats about january 6. they said they shared information they had with other law enforcement agencies. more to that story available at the wall street journal if you want to read it there. we will hear from rita in jacksonville, go ahead. rita in jacksonville, hello. caller: hello? host: go ahead. caller: i think he needs to be impeached. he was a liar and a thief from the beginning and he separated many family members and he separated our family. host: but why do you support this specific impeachment? caller: under the ground, in the ground. host: let's go to tina in virginia, supporter of this impeachment. go ahead. caller: hi, pedro. i'm calling to say that i support the impeachment because this man has never been punished

for none of his wrongdoing. i think he needs to be impeached and i think the republican party will have a lot of regrets before they die. host: why do you think they need to impeach this time around? caller: he needs to be impeached because he has lied about practically everything he said since he has been in office. i think he needs to be impeached. we all know he needs to be impeached. host: lying is enough for consideration of incitement. caller: i'm sorry, what is your question? host: why do you think he needs to be impeached on that front? caller: he needs to be impeached because he is the one that orchestrated the riot in d.c. host: why do you say that? caller: because he was talking to the people before they actually walked down there. they followed his instructions, pedro. host: let's hear from arthur in

bedford, new hampshire who opposes the impeachment. hello. caller: hi. i am calling in regards to a couple of the comments that were made. i think there was a gentleman on earlier that was trying to express, he expressed that they did not go to the capital to siege it i'm a but i think that basically he is correct in that because there was no incitement in his words. and it is written and it is plain as day. i listened to his entire speech a number of times. he said, soon many people are going to walk to the capital or march to the capital. he did say march, but not in the sense of violence. and he said, we are going to peacefully march to the capital and use our voices to let it be

known, you know. he specifically said to use your voices, the same excuse that maxine waters, that all these other people that have been much more rhetorically violent in their speech. eric holder, when we go low -- when they go low, we kick them. you can say a million things that have not been held against people. if every democrat had been held responsible for the violence that occurred in these cities -- host: are you saying the presidents rhetoric has no role in this? caller: i am saying that his words definitely did not incite it because he said peacefully march. host: i did not say worth, i said rhetoric. caller: i am saying that there is a lot of other rhetoric that has been more violent that has actually stated violence, do

this. he just said, march peacefully and use your voices. he never said, lay siege or go into the capital. by going to the capital, it is obvious that he meant to go down and protests from outside like any other protest, at least that is the way i read everything. host: that is bedford, new hampshire. let's go to fort lauderdale, florida. this is jim. hello. caller: hello. my point is this. compare what is happening to what should happen. what is happening is we are impeaching a president before an investigation has been completed. do you know that the officer, sicknick, whatever his name, tragically died. do you know that the coroner has not determined that his death

was caused by blunt trauma? he was supposed to have been killed by someone swinging a fire extinction or at him. where is the witness to this act and where is that fire extinction or? host: this is related to a charge of incitement by the impeachment managers and they made their case on the house side and pass the article of impeachment, that is what is being considered today. what you think about that -- what do you think about that? caller: where is the investigation that justifies their charges? these people are acting irresponsibly. we are in a very dark period in our country. this period will be remembered as even worse than mccarthyism of the 1950's. people are being slandered, smeared and it is terrible. what we need to do is get through this impeachment, donald trump will be acquitted, and we need to have a direct answer to what happened in the selection, which people are saying is what

incited the people at the capitol. the direct answers to the questions have not been done. host: ok, that is jim in fort lauderdale, florida. fox news did report three days ago after a month after the riot that an autopsy results are still pending when it comes to the investigation of brian sicknick and his death investigation. "the official cause of death not released, no one has been charged." you can see that on the fox news website. when it comes to the voices and people that you will hear from today, usa today highlights on the second trial, some of the impeachment managers that you will see giving cara mund -- giving testimony, delete impeachment manager, also diana of colorado, eric swalwell of california, ted lieu will of california, madeleine dean of

pennsylvania, -- the presidents team, just two, bruce castor in pennsylvania served time as a legal expert and in many legal capacities. david shown also part of the president's team. again, we invite you to watch it on c-span2. (202) 748-8001 -- c-span.org is how you can follow along. as you can imagine, the majority of minority leaders of the senate making comments about the start of these events after they finalize how this trial will take place and the numerous days and what will be done on this day. we will hear from chuck schumer, he talked about argument about the constitutionality of impeaching a former president. [video clip] sen. schumer: as the trial

begins, the forces aligned with the former president are prepared to argue that the trial is unconstitutional because donald trump is no longer in office. relying on a fringe legal theory that has been roundly debunked by constitutional scholars from across the political spectrum. just yesterday, another very prominent conservative republican constitutional lawyer, chuck cooper, wrote in the wall street journal that republicans are dead wrong if they think an impeachment trial of a former president is unconstitutional. here is what he wrote, "given that the constitution permits the senate to impose the penalty of permanent disqualification only on former officeholders, it defies logic to suggest that the senate is prohibited from trying and convicting former officeholders. the senators who supported mr. paul's motion should reconsider

their view and judge the former president's misconduct on the merits. that is no liberal, that is chuck cooper, a lawyer who represented house republicans in a lawsuit against speaker pelosi, a former advisor to senator cruz's presidential campaign, driving a stake into the central argument we are going to hear from the former president's counsel. i understand why this fringe constitutional theory is being advanced. for the past few weeks, the political right has been searching for a safe harbor, a way to oppose the conviction of donald trump without passing judgment on his conduct, to avoid alienating the former president supporters without condoning his obviously despicable, unpatriotic, un-democratic behavior. but the truth is, no such safe harbor exists.

the trial is clearly constitutional by every frame of analysis, by constitutional text, senate president -- senate precendent and basic common sense. host: that was chuck schumer from new york making those comments on the floor yesterday. also joining him and making comments was senate minority leader mitch mcconnell, talked about the process that senators agreed to, and saying that the impeachment trial and the process is a fair one. [video clip] sen. mcconnell: i am pleased that leader schumer and i were able to reach an agreement on a fair process and timeline for the upcoming senate trial. this structure has been approved by former president trump's legal team and the house managers because it reserves due process and the rights of both sides. it will give senators as jurors

ample time to review the case and the arguments of each side. host: when it comes to the legal team, the washington post profiles bruce castor who you will hear from today if you are to watch the proceedings. we are talking about what they plan to do as far as who will handle the workload saying, the house brief argues that the structure of the constitution as well as its original meaning and interpretations by congress demonstrate that a former official remains subject to conviction, that they will handle the jurisdictional issues, castor will be responsible for the presentation and strategy that i will be asking the book of the questions. they add that last week, for president trump rejected the request to appear at an impeachment trial. when you don't have a good case, you get the defendant to testify, castor said. the president will not be testifying. leslie in marietta, georgia, a

supporter of impeachment. go ahead. caller: thanks for having me on. just wanted to talk about the arguments regarding free speech. i just want to say that we have some limits on free speech as it is and it has to do whenever it threatens either national security or things that disenfranchise or ruin your public image. there is already limits on free speech. based on what we know, the lie that has been said, that this election has been rigged and the comments made on january 6 do allow the senate to impeach trump just because of threats to national security. host: kathy is next in saint martinville, louisiana, who opposes this effort. caller: good morning, pedro.

i feel like i don't wake up in america every morning. it is impossible to believe that what is going on is anything but theater. to see the democrats parading with the articles of impeachment for the second time and to know that from the day he was elected, that is their main priority, to impeach him or to make him look bad, i know he asked for a lot of the trouble that he gets, but i also know that he worked very hard for the american people while he was in office. i don't understand how people cannot see what they are doing when they are so many more important things that need to be dealt with in this country, the people that are suffering and losing their jobs every day, i don't know how they think that we are just going to keep writing checks and the country is going to be ok.

there is nobody to tax, people are not working to tax them. how are we going to pay for any of this stuff, especially the kabuki theater? host: laurie is in georgia, a supporter of impeachment. go ahead. caller: first, i would like to say that one of the things that would help calm things down is if the republican party would step up to the plate and admit that the election was fair and that all of this fraud stuff that they are talking about, that is what is feeding so much of this. that is what trump started. he is the one that stepped up to the plate the first time and announced how if he lost, it would be because of fraudulent things going on with the election. he started this. and then when he gets down there day after day and finally, the date that this all happened after don jr. and rudy giuliani and any of the other ones stood up there and pumped them up like

a pep rally after they have fed these people these lies. they need to be told by the republican party that they are lies. those people don't want to hear that from the democrats. they need to hear it from the republicans that are standing up there and telling it. host: why exactly do you support impeachment? caller: i support it because he stood up there and he told these people, he was going to walk down there with them. let's go to the -- i'm going to walk down there with you and we are going to take it back and you've got to be forceful, you've got to fight for your rights to take back america. he told them that and then he goes back and sits down and watches it on tv. that is what that man's thing to do every day was, to watch what he was putting the american people. -- he was puppeting the american

people. host: when it comes to the republican parties and comments about the events we are going to see today, one of those republicans in the washington post, adam kinzinger, represents illinois's 16th district, "it is necessary to save america, i say this as a lifelong republican who voted to impeach trump last month. all my colleagues on the right side of the aisle took the opposite path. most sought is a waste of time, political theater that distracted from bigger issues. the overruling -- overwhelming majority -- this is not a waste of time. if the gop does not take a stand, the chaos of the past few months and the path for could quickly return to the future of our party and our country depends on confronting what happened so it does not happen again. that was adam kinzinger, republican from illinois serves the 16th district. juanita next in georgia who

opposes impeachment. go ahead. caller: yes, i would like to say , we have had for the last year all in seattle, all of these other places, the fbi, the police, nobody was involved. now all of a sudden at the courthouse, at the capitol building, the fbi, all the police and everybody are involved. they want to prosecute everybody. where were they in seattle at that course thousand -- at that courthouse? why is the fbi and all of these government officials absent during the all of this and now they show up and they want to prosecute everybody? host: when it comes to impeachment, why do you oppose it? caller: that is the very reason. if it is fair for one, it is fair for the other. if you're going to prosecute

one, prosecute all of them. don't let someone get away without -- with everything and don't want to do nothing to them and when the president gets out there, they want to prosecute him. if they are going to cross you the big man, get the little man, too. -- if they are going to prosecute the big man, get the little man, too. host: a glaring warning as to the constitutionality of this procedure, former president trump should be held accountable but in a civil procedure that is from waterloo saying that the former president told them to go. jeff in ohio saying, i support impeachment. each senator swore an oath to the consultation, not their party. impeachment and conviction are needed to prevent a future president from doing the same or worse. this is from rolando in texas, the president must be convicted for his charge of lies, mostly

for the betrayal of his oath of office. texting is available. you can tweet us, you can post on facebook your thoughts concerning the second impeachment trial. the rain in louisiana who opposes it. go ahead. -- lorraine in louisiana who opposes it. caller: it is interesting to me that they called him a liar who incites riots. anyway, just want to compare his words of fight and inciting riots, trump, that the beginning of our country, jones was known for being asked to surrender by the british and his ship was about to go down and john paul jones replied, surrender, never,

i have just begun to fight. obviously, there was a physical fight, but that comment was more one of spirit. there was a war going on. he was a part of correcting that and his spirit was strong. host: what that means for the second impeachment today? caller: the inciting, and i want to make another comment after this because this is the most important one. host: we can make that and then we will have to move onto another caller. go ahead. caller: because they are seeing his words fight inside of the riot. -- his words fight incited the riot. he meant, stay strong in spirit, we are going to -- stay strong in spirit. i still think there needs to be

an investigation because there is so much that has not been proven. host: that is lorraine in louisiana. laura in new york. go ahead. caller: trump needs to be impeached. he started this month before the election, that it would not be a fair election, that there would be fraud committed. after the election results that did not go in his favor, thank god, he then decided to bring forth cases. he had 50 cases across this great country to try and overturn the election results. yes, he incited because of what he said. no, everybody is allowed free speech. but if it does harm, and it did harm, people were killed, people were injured, they broke into federal property, people were shouting, hang mike pence.

he always wants to tell people, do not believe what you see or don't believe what you hear. we all watched it on tv on what took place. the man is a traitor to this country and he did not uphold the oath of office to defend and protect -- host: that is nora in new york giving her thoughts on the state of impeachment. the second impeachment trial set to kick off at 1:00 this afternoon. as you heard many of the callers express many constitutional issues being expressed by the callers and by the legal teams themselves as they go on to the activities today. here to walk us through some of them, president and ceo of the national constitution center. good morning to you. guest: good morning. host: walk us through the cause additional issues at play. guest: there are two. one is duty senate had the jurisdiction to try former

president, and the second is president trump guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and inciting lambs a -- inciting an insurrection. on the first question, people who question the jurisdiction led by senator rand paul say you cannot try a former president because the penalty for impeachment's removal from office and disqualification to hold a future office. the argument on the other side is that the senate has tried former offices before. they voted in 1876 to try a former secretary who resigned before being impeached. it would not make any sense for them to official to be able to avoid this qualification from office just by resigning moments before his trial takes place. in the end, listeners should listen carefully, they are

called jurisdictional arguments. you can make up your own minds. ultimately it is up to the senate to decide this is an open question. it has never happened before because no former president has ever been tried. do not imagine that the u.s. supreme court will decide this question for the senate. the supreme court has said that the senate has almost complete discretion under its sole power to try impeachment to structure the trial in any way it wishes. if the senate votes to hold the trial after four hours of debate today, it is an extremely small possibility, almost nonexistent that the supreme court would step in and say, stop the trial because you made the wrong decision. one final thing to say about the supreme court, one of the previous callers said that the fact that chief justice decided not to participate shows that he does not approve of the trial. i don't think we can draw that conclusion from his decision not to participate. his decision says he does not

think that the constitution requires a chief justice to preside over the trial of a former president. it does not tell us whether he thinks that the trial of the former president is unconstitutional or whether he thinks that the supreme court should intervene in any way in the rules of the trial. i think i better stop there. host: the second question is incitement as far as what has to be proven. i know this is not a legal case, but a political one, but there are legal aspects. what has to be proven to make that charge of incitement? guest: you are right, it is not a legal case. impeachment is a mix of political and legal and ultimately, constitutional judgments. if it were a legal case and if the president were being tried for incitement, then the test comes from a 1959 case called the brandenburg case and the question is, was his speech directed to and likely to incite imminent violence and the house managers cited words like, you have to fight like hell or you will not have a country like

this anymore and pointing to the capital, go march on the capital, you cannot be weak, as examples that it would meet the legal test for incitement. this is an important point. the overwhelming authority and precendent suggest that you don't have to be guilty of a high crime or misdemeanor. they have tried to argue that you need a violation of the law that most people do not agree with on that point. even if the senate concluded that president trump did not meet the legal standard for incitement and could not be convicted in a criminal court for incitement of violence, they might still conclude that it is a high crime or misdemeanor to incite an insurrection by urging your supporters to march violently on the capital to overturn the results of the election. that is going to be the crux of the debate after you get through the technicalities. the question is, is not only president trump's speech, you

have to fight like hell, but also his comments leading up to the election, those of his lawyers and his children and his other supporters, saying that the election was illegitimate and therefore, had to be violently stopped, did all of that add up to an effort by the president of the united states to incite supporters to violently overturn the results of an election. supporters of impeachment will say, as several senators did, if this is not impeachable, then what is. if an effort to overturn an election with false claims about fraud that lead to violence and the storming of the capital is not a high crime or misdemeanor, it is hard to think of what could be. the argument on the other side will probably focus mostly on the first amendment and the idea that the president has free speech rights, he is allowed to express his views that the election was overturned and he is allowed to tell his supporters to do whatever they can to fight for the right if they see it and therefore, would

be a violation of his free-speech rights to call it a high crime or misdemeanor. host: talk a little bit about how many senators it takes to approve an impeachment and talk about that second vote, if that should happen, the second vote of keeping him from running for another office and why that has to be a separate vote. guest: it takes two thirds of the senators to vote to convict him of high crimes and misdemeanors. if that number votes to convict, then removal from office is automatic, basically two thirds say he is guilty and he is automatically removed from office. since he is out of office, that automatic penalty can happen. you then need a separate vote to does qualify him from holding future office and that requires only a majority, not two thirds. they had to vote to convict him first. you need to thirds going to convict and only a majority saying that he has to be disqualified in the future. host: our guest, the ceo of the national constitution center and

you can go to their website to find out all about what the constitution says on a number of things, particularly as far as impeachment is going and jeffrey rosen talking to us about that. thank you for your time. guest: thank you. host: a few more calls. gary in connecticut who imposes -- who opposes impeachment. go ahead. caller: good morning. it seems to me, very faulty from a strategic point of view. secondly, i am wondering why a different path has been taken as he is an ex-president, why not impound a grand jury in washington, d.c. and charge him sauce -- charge him thus and put

him before american citizens, that is my question. host: you are talking a federal criminal investigation? caller: exactly. a grand jury could be impounded to look into his activities. why go ahead with something that is clearly going to fail? host: gary in connecticut. betty in wisconsin, a supporter of impeachment. hello. caller: good morning. trump's aids -- trump's aides admitted that when this started, he had six calls asking for help and he did not answer the phone and they said he just sat there and was watching on tv while that was going on and he said he enjoyed it. tell me, why would you stop it?

all i know, i went through watergate when i was there for a republican congressman. this is nothing compared to this time. host: what is the difference? caller: big time murder. by not answering them and stopping them and he just watched it on tv, that is innocent? no, that is not innocent. host: here is michael in indiana who opposes impeachment. hello. caller: good morning. i just think that donald trump really never had a chance. since they won this presidency, everybody talked about this guy so bad.

i don't even think satan himself could have spoke about donald trump the way people were speaking about the sky -- were speaking about this guy. when donald trump was saying the voting legislation was rigged, even his election was not rigged. how i look at it is he is telling the truth because even if america has not went through it, other countries for sure is hijacking votes. host: why do you oppose impeachment specifically? caller: i don't think he should be impeached, no, i don't think he should be impeached, not at all. host: why not? caller: because he did not do anything at that rally. he is not responsible for people's actions and what they do. sometimes you can come across,

you can say things and people just take it out of the text. but this man is already one of the hundred richest people in the world. i think he tried to be sincere. he don't need the money or nothing. i don't see it like that. he did a lot of good. host: do you think he should be convicted and that is the purpose of the senate trial? caller: no, they should leave that alone. he's not -- he is not responsible for that. host: let's hear from marie caller: several of the rioters admitted they received phone calls from donald trump to show up at the protest that day. i am sir the -- i am sure

personal phone calls he made his where they. got the orders to. march all the people said he did not hear it in the speech -- and they did not hear it in the speech. host: where did you hear about the phone calls? caller: people on tv admitted they deceived phone calls from donald trump to protest. anyone defaming federal property should receive -- trump said that anybody defacing federal property should face 10 years in prison. if you encourage people to go to the capital and hurt people, knowing this law has been passed by the president, but you are still bold enough to destroy property, the only way you eat -- you would do that is if you know people are going to pardon you. the only way you would expect a

pardon is if that person sent you in there to do what you did. host: that was marie in mississippi. that was the last call we will take for this hour but we will continue on looking at this impeachment trial, the trial happening in the senate at 1:00 today. two desks joining us to talk over the legal and constitutional elements of this. john malcolm will join us as well as elizabeth wydra. later on in the program we will also take up these issues plus other issues when it comes to the work of the senate with trent lott for mississippi and tom daschle. they will discuss their power-sharing agreement and how that relates to the agreement being enjoined by the senate today. those conversations coming up on

"washington journal." ♪ >> the impeachment trial of former president donald trump who faces can -- faces conviction of insurrection today at 1:00 p.m. eastern time. watch anytime on demand at c-spine.org/impeachment. >> two senate committees will hold confirmation hearings for mayor intended -- president biden's nomination for -- before the senate government offers committee. the second is on wednesday at 10:00 a.m. eastern before the

budget committee. watch live today on c-span3 and wednesday on c-span. watch on c-span.org or listen on the free radio. -- free radio at -- radio app. >> visit c-span's new online store at c-span.org. we are taking preorders for the congressional directory. every purchase help support c-span's nonprofit operations. shop today at c-spanshop.org. >> with the biden administration meeting federal response to the coronavirus pandemic, follow the latest at c-span.org/coronavirus. use the interactive valerie of maps to follow the cases -- gallery of maps to follow cases

in the u.s. and worldwide. go to c-span.org/coronavirus. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we have two experts join us and look at the areas issues, john malcolm is with the heritage foundation. he also served as a former deputy assistant to the attorney general or the bush administration. also joining us is elizabeth wydra from the constitutional accountability center. elizabeth, we will start with you. one of the issues today is the constitutionality of impeaching a former president. host: -- guest: the constitution is clear that this is constitutional. scholars from across the spectrum, very conservative

constitutional experts and progressive experts all agree this is in fact constitutional. ensuring that donald trump is disqualified from holding further office lies at the heart of why the easement remedy is in the constitution -- impeachment remedy is in the constitution. if someone given that trust would abuse it to entrench their own power and use it when it is perverting democracy, there is no greater demonstration of that then seeking to thwart the peaceful transition of power and delay the actions of this -- and encourage the actions of this mob. the idea of why you need of the remedy of impeachment and

disqualification, when you have someone who is willing to betray their oath to the constitution, that lies at the heart of why impeachment is here. the constitution applies the first day, last day, and every day in between other president's office -- between of a president's office. there is no -- for the abuse of power when it comes to the constitution. simply resigning or running out the clock or doing unconstitutional acts in the last moment of your presidency could get you off scott free then that would not be a very good system. the drafters of our constitution did set up a good system and allowed to take place. host: mr. malcolm, same question to you. guest: elizabeth got to the merits of the facts of the trial

but i will stick to your question about the constitutionality. there is far from unanimity on this issue. it is a close question. the main argument that had been used in favor of the constitutionality is that there is this second remedy of disqualification and that -- impeached former officials and five of the states had impeachment formal officials and the framers were aware of that. on the other hand, england does not have a written constitution, we do. our constitution allocates power and limits power by the branches of the federal government including congress. congress newsom states allowed trials of the former officials and some states did not. they could have explicit lease

that -- said -- explicitly said that some can be tried and some cannot. the constitution says that the president, vice president, and all civil officers can be convicted in an impeachment trial and only if so convicted can have a separate vote about being disqualified. donald trump is not the president, vice president, or a civil officer. it is not true that he is somehow getting off scott. -- scott free. he is the only president to be impeached twice and history will record what happened. they can decide how much blame, if any, lands on the shoulders of donald trump. as well, he can be criminally prosecuted. there is nothing about this trial that would prevent that from happening if the authorities think he committed a crime. host: our guests will be with us

for the hour. if you want to ask questions, 202-748-8000 if you support impeachment. 202-748-8001 if you oppose it. you can text us at 202-748-8003. you can post on twitter and facebook. mr. malcolm, one of the examples of a former being impeached goes back to president grant's secretary of war. is that a good example? >> it is -- guest: it is an example of the senate trying somebody who is a former official, but that precedent cuts both ways. he was caught in a corruption scandal, he was clearly guilty at the time that he resigned. he acknowledged his guilt. moments after he resigned, the house impeached him and had a trial in the senate. as the end of the day, even though everyone knew he was guilty, he was acquitted because 26 senators said he is guilty

that we do not believe under the constitution he can be tried in the senate. although a majority thought he could be tried, not enough to convict him. i would say better president would be richard nixon -- precedent would be richard nixon. in 2010 was a federal judge who was impeached but he resigned. then the trial was dismissed. host: same question to you, elizabeth wydra. guest: i think the example you mentioned is illustrative because it shows the dangers if you don't allow a senate trial of someone who is no longer in office. belmont raised his hand to try to avoid the impeachment remedy within the constitution. we don't want to incentivize our

leaders to abuse the public trust and try to avoid the constitutional remedy of impeachment by handing in their resignation before an impeachment vote. the impeachment here was passed by the house under their authority while trump was still in office. we are talking about what the constitution required, we look to the constitution it's self -- itself. -- a mandatory minimum using the language of criminal law or impeachment which is a mandatory minimum in the constitution is removal from off this -- from office. there is a second penalty if someone is convicted under articles of impeachment which is

disqualification from future office. that is important in this case. maybe the other cases like president nixon, the threat was no longer there to our tomorrow the -- to our democracy. here there is every indication that donald trump is not remorseful and continues to press lies about the election being rigged that are very dangerous and detrimental to our democracy. he intends to continue to try to seek public office. after what we such a way sixth and the lengths -- after what we sought january 6 and the lengths trump would go -- the constitutional remedy could not be more appropriate. guest: can i respond briefly? host: go ahead. guest: richard nixon was not particularly remorseful either

and there were talks about him having a comeback. that was a possibility because history judged him the way it did. what this comes down to is -- disqualification is not an alternative remedy. senators don't get to disqualification unless they vote to remove him. elizabeth's argument would say that is not a president -- not a precedent. no, the constitution says as an appendage to removal you can vote on disqualification. it is only people who have and so removed who can be subsequently disqualified. he cannot be removed because he no longer holds that office. guest: i disagree with you and so do a vast majority of scholars. host: we will examine that

further in the hour and invite callers to participate. this is stephen in indiana who supports impeachment. what is your question or comment? caller: impeachment is for political offenses related to the abuse or violation of public trust for purplish -- for personal gain. is there any better example than what happened on january 6? guest: thank you for the question. no man is above justice and the authorities -- and if the authorities believe trump committed a crime, he can be charged with it. nobody is defending what happened in the capital. the question is not was it a good thing or a bad thing that happened. it is a question of did the president's statements and sites

that insurrection -- insight that insurrection? i will not say what trump said which is that his words were appropriate. he said we're going to fight and fight like hell, that is standard political speech. "i'm going to elect so-and-so, he is a fighter." no one thinks they're going to punch up their fellow senators. that is core political speech to -- that politicians have used. there is a fact that this riot was preplanned before donald trump gave his speech january 6. host: elizabeth wydra? guest: i do not endorse what

donald trump said january 6, but i think there is no defense for it. i think the caller is right in that if this is not an teachable offense -- an impeachable offense, what is? this is not just encouraging a mob and encouraging violence, this was encouraging an angry mob of people. some were armed who went to the capital to disrupt the duty of congress in a sacred transfer of power that had up to this point in our nation's history had been peaceful. that is a shame. it is a stain on our democracy. history will judge donald trump

harshly, but so should the senate when they take up their duty to consider the article of incitement to insurrection. i remember watching and i live in washington, d.c., i love this town and our constitution. watching the attack that day was terrible and terrifying. the jurors that will be considering these articles of impeachment where there, too. there were 100 witnesses in that senate chamber that was taken over by some of these insurrectionist. -- insurrectionists. this is a serious crime. john mentioned there could be other consequences for -- consequences. there could be a criminal procedure later, but it should not be an excuse to not use the

constitutional mechanism that we should take when there is a betrayal by the executive of our country and such a violation of his oath of office. host: here is nora from virginia who opposes impeachment. you are on with our guests. caller: good morning everyone. i don't agree with impeachment. since the day he was elected, they were making fun of him, they wanted to get rid of him. the people who are watching [indiscernible] we don't do that. in virginia, if you wear a hat that says "make america great again" gets mugged.

-- you get mugged. republicans here are not welcome. they are attacking him and hunting him into the day he will die. host: that is nora in virginia. miss weider -- ms. wydra, you go first. guest: there is no evidence this was an anitfa event or exactly what it looks like. we have seen a lot of people arrested and charged and i am sure there will be more coming. we are in an era when there are alternative facts so i think it

is important to lay it out there that in this impeachment proceeding to be clear there are no legitimate frames of election rod and trump -- election fraud and trump's claims that it was rigged were false. we have seen responsible republicans stand up and say that. those who don't, i hope they would. guest: we can have a separate discussion -- i'm not claiming this is a stolen election but we could have a separate discussion. i also live in the district and i was horrified by what happened. i'm not going to claim there were anitfa people the capital. what happened was horrifying and everybody was in there should be arrested and prosecuted to the

fullest extent of the law. there were thousands of people on the mall that day. there were a couple of hundred that reached the capital and went in. most of the people there were there because they had questions about the election. they supported donald trump, that is who he was speaking to. he said you're going to walk peacefully down pennsylvania avenue towards the capital. if he had said "grab your pitchforks and storm the barricade," that is a different story. then you might use the brandenburg test that he was going out of his way to insight lawlessness. en -- encite lawlessness. i think that is out of the question. host: i will ask you both then, what do they have two present to

make their create destitute make their -- to make their case? guest: elizabeth was right about that the 100 senators who were there and the house managers were there that day. they were witnesses. they did a pretty good job in their laying out what the facts are in terms of the preplanning and what happened at the capital. it was as horrifying as elizabeth said. the logical things they will have to overcome is that donald trump knew about the planning and went out of his way to foment this and sent people knowing they were an armed mob and encouraged them to do what they ended up doing. i'm not condoning the word he

used on that occasion, i just don't think you can establish that he knew this was an armed lynch mob and he was sending them into greek mayhem. destitute -- to wreak mayhem. guest: impeachment is not the same thing as a criminal trial. we don't need to prove without a doubt with reasonable facts, or a statute that you have to include every intent, you don't have to meet the same standards you do in a criminal trial. impeachment is in the constitution, as alexander hamilton explained, a political remedy. i want to be very clear about that. in preventing -- in presenting

the facts, what's the house managers need to show to the jurors and to the american people is that this was such a betrayal of the country that it rises to the level of high crimes and demeanors that should get someone convicted of impeachment. under that standard -- i know from reading the news that there were gatherings of people who are likely armed -- who were likely armed and leading up to this event there were many statements by trump that were working up the crowd and making them think their country was in danger and being undermined if they did not fight back, if they did not stop this steel. -- this steal.

then you have that day, knowing people that were armed there and it had been planned in advance to advance on the capital -- and then that rhetoric and the actions after the storming started. that is the house managers'case to make and i think they will make a strong case whether they use witnesses or not or appeal to what we all saw on monday -- on that day. guest: you just heard from elizabeth wydra on the constitutional accountability center. john malcolm served in the bush administration and is at the heritage foundation.

kyle in west virginia on our oppose line. caller: i wanted to point out the double standard in it comes to prosecuting a former president. with president barack obama who said if we bring a knife to the fight -- if they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun. then we move on to joe biden speaking to the moral action congress, he said the fact of the matter is if we can't get an consensus -- a consensus, there is nothing but happens but the power of the executive and we will fight. host: what is the question you

would direct to our guests? caller: i wasn't really listening to this one. host: okay, we will leave your comments there. elizabeth wydra, what's to think about comments by other political leaders? guest: i don't like these kinds of comments, especially when we are talking about something as important as democracy. i think it is important to look at what we have in front of us and look at whether this act is something the senate should convict on. with respect to general political rhetoric, i think you

can use common sense. if you talk to a bunch of clergy folk and talk about using rest knuckles in a fight about policy versus speaking to -- shirley trump had more information than -- shirley -- surely trump had more information than i did that the mob was there to try to stop the congress in dissipating in the electoral college vote -- in participating in the electoral college vote. i think the "what about" part we should leave aside and look at this issue in the constitution. host: john malcolm? guest: kyle raises a good point and that is what is considered

acceptable political rhetoric. donald trump is entitled to the same standard as joe biden. they have been discussed in the briefs filed by various parties. perhaps that rhetoric should not be acceptable. this ability on both sides of the political aisle are wanting. i agree that you have to judge with the facts of the case. elizabeth is making it out as if donald trump knew they were carrying pipe bombs. there is no evidence of that. you're looking at it now as if there was a lot of chatter, but the capitol police were not expecting what happened that day. unless they come forward with facts that donald trump said to bring baseball bats and knives

and storm the capital, i don't think they will get there. people on both sides of the political aisle use harsh political rhetoric, perhaps too harsh. guest: i have to break into say this is not about civility, this is about raking in and seizing the capital and five people died. this is not about hurt feelings or saying nasty things. this is about something different that resulted in violence and death and resulted in the siege on the u.s. capitol. guest: agreed. but donald trump did not storm the capital and in the same way that when maxine waters said that you need to get in trouble officials face and they did that

too, i don't hold next in waters responsible. it still lead to violence, people got hurt. host: as far as evidence, is the speech on january 6 considered primary evidence? or will there be video reaction from the crowd and things like that? is that secondary evidence and how does that work? i understand this is not primarily a legal trial. mr. malcolm, you go first. guest: both are important and they lay a lot of emphasis in their brief on the horrors that happened inside the capital. nobody is going to be defending what happened inside the capital. the question will be whether donald trump cost that and intended to cause that -- caused that and intended to cause that.

this is not a civil trial. this is a political trial and it is left to the discretion of the individual jurors, including the senator who will be acting as a judge. it is far from what you would see in a courtroom. host: elizabeth wydra? guest: i think all of those aspects of the day and the events leading up to the day will come into play. it shows that the words that were spoken donald trump were received by the crowd as direction or encouragement to violently take the capital and tried to put in danger the line of succession to the incident -- to the presidency, to stop congress from counting the

votes. i think trump's words, the crowd's reaction, and what came to play -- there is an important point to be made that this is not a criminal trial. even things that are protected by the first amendment could still be impeachable. the president could go and say i am a nazi or say something with a racial slur. that would be protected by the first amendment if he were dragged into a criminal trial, but it is still something that could be impeachable. it is important to make sure we are not aligning constitutional doctrines. i think the defenders of the president want to get into these constitutional doctrine

questions to try to defend him because so many of us all with our own eyes what happened on that day. -- song with our own eyes what happened on that day -- saw with our own eyes what happened on that day. john has been saying the president's words were not incitement but people can make their own decisions. the american people are struggling too much during this pandemic to look up the precedent for the textual arguments for holding an impeachment. i think it is important to be clear and plain about the constitutional framework. caller: -- guest: can i wreath

respond? -- can i briefly respond? host: go ahead. guest: i want to agree with statements she said, if the president said he wants the army to seize the capital -- it's a private citizen said that it would be protected by the first amendment. if a president said that, it could be an impeachable offense. he did not say any of those things. i am all in favor about people educating themselves about the constitution. i agree with her, people should study these arguments themselves. host: let's hear from natasha in alabama in favor of impeachment. caller: hello, how are you. ? i support impeachment because

donald trump used all the powers he could as far as going to court and the argument being run out -- being thrown out by judges he appointed. then you go down to georgia about him finding him some book -- some votes. then he made for the call for all of those people to be on the capital on the sixth of january which was the last trip on the train as far as them certifying those votes. for him to go out there -- he made statements about the proud

boys and for them to stand back. but he had them come up there to do just what they did. the fact that they overran and went into congress, we need to set a precedent with these particular actions as far as them going into the capital. host: that is natasha. mr. malcolm, are all of those other things she brought up up for consideration? guest: i suppose everything that would speak to what the president's intent was that date or its effect on the people who showed up in washington january 6 could be considered fair game. i appreciate natasha's comments. i'm not going to defend the

president's rhetoric. i think his call to raffensperger was inconsiderate to put it lightly. those people believed the election had been stolen and they supported the president. there were many who did not storm the capital and did not have an intention to storm the capital. there were a few hundred people who came with a different intention and the question will come down to did donald trump intent to incite those people to do the horrifying they did january 6. host: elizabeth wydra? guest: i find it super weird to say that not everyone engaged in insurrection so it is not a big deal.

the house managers have done a good job of placing all of that into context. she brings up the call to the georgia secretary of state in which trump asked him to find more votes. yediot is that donald trump -- the idea was that donald trump was so willing to subvert democracy and subvert the will of the people that time and time again he sought to undermine our democracy, including with that call and leading up to a last desperate attempt to try to stop counting of the votes in congress presided over by his vice president who he clearly sized -- who he clearly criticized. i think that is part of the story that will be told in the impeachment trial and part of

the story that shows why the disqualification from holding further office for donald trump is important because there is this intense and breathtaking disregard for the constitutional processes of democracy and the voice of the people. host: what is the significance of the chief justice not being there presiding over the events? guest: there is really no significance. the reason the drafters of the constitution had the chief justice presided over an impeachment trial of a seating -- of a sitting president is that the residing officer would be the vice president or the president pro tem. both the vice president and the president pro tem are in the line to the presidency so they would have an interest in the out coming of a trial of the

president. if you have a former president, those concerns no longer by. -- no longer apply. the normal procedures for an trial would require a chief justice in that case. chief justice roberts is loath to have a supreme court injected into anything resembling politics. i am sure he would be happy to take that constitutional opening to not preside over the trial. guest: i want to harken back to one thing elizabeth said. let me be clear, i have not said nor do i believe what happened in the capitol building on january 6 was not a big deal. it was a big deal. the question was whether donald trump was possible for the horrifying thinks. with respect to the chief justice not presiding over the

trial, i agree with every elizabeth said -- with everything elizabeth said. otherwise, you would have people in the line of succession is getting a job promotion upon the president's conviction. donald trump is no longer the president and the chief justice has rightfully bowed out. there is no issue with that other than that the fact that the person acting as judge now will be both a witness and somebody voting as it your which is -- as a juror which is irregular. host: don in pennsylvania, a supporter of impeachment. caller: elizabeth mentioned the first amendment. it appears the guy from the hearing agrees with that, an

irrelevant point. when you storm the capital, that is when rhetoric comes more than it should be. i would like to say trump was more outraged at a football player kneeling during an national anthem then people storming the capital. he came out and said they were patriots. who other than donald trump blamed mike pence for not overturning the results of the election? it is clear what was going on in his mind. you can't get into his mind physically put you know what was going on -- but you know what was going on. host: mr. malcolm, you go first. guest: i'm not going to defend what donald trump's words before

hand or his reactions were. he has said several things that on occasion would make me cringe. the question of the impeachment trial is do they have the constitutional authority to try this case and did he incite a riot. i don't think the facts are there. he was claiming this was a stolen election and their -- and the lengths to which he went, i was very disappointed in that. i think one person who behaved magnificently was mike pence. -- to attack mike pence in the way he did i think was wrong. that certainly is germane and you can decide if you like the president or don't like the president or you are sorry he lost the election. but it is not germane to decide

if he incited an insurrection. guest: one thing to remind us about with this impeachment trial is while there may be criminal proceedings later, and certainly there could be other proceedings down the line other state and federal law for some of the acts that donald trump took to undermine the election, this particular proceeding, a constitutional proceeding underneath the constitution is something that is more broad than just getting to the nitty-gritty. obviously you need to do a thorough job in presenting the case in voting whether to convict or not. the senators have to keep in mind the larger picture of

deterrence. crimes against our democracy itself, political crimes against the constitution and against this country. i think it is very important to say that you could make an argument that maybe a couple thousand people did not take his words the right way. a lot of people stand the capital. people died -- a lot of people stormed the capital and people died. it came from a practice from donald trump of undermining the election and telling people lies so that they believe the election was stolen from them. when you hear that from the president, americans have great respect for the office of the presidency. when you hear repeated lies and

you hear "fight like hell or you want to a country anymore." that -- anymore that is something the senators need to consider -- anymore," that is something the senators need to consider. guest: -- it is about a very specific charge that has been leveled by the house managers, not whether they think president trump acted presidential over the last several -- guest: that is not what i said. guest: but you mentioned the dignity of the office and whether or not -- guest: that is not what i said.

guest: it is a very specific charge. the other thing i would say in terms of deterrence, you did not need to impeach richard nixon in order to send a deterrence message about what he did in office. history is going to remember january 6 for a long time and the fact that trump was impeached. that deterrence message has been sent. guest: elizabeth wydra, please respond. host: as somebody who understood -- who studied richard nixon, i studied a lot about watergate. unfortunately for the country and everyone, there was a different republican already at that time then what we are seeing today with respect to donald trump. i will put that aside and say we can look at the first impeachment of donald trump.

one senator said she thought he learned his lesson but he didn't. looking at donald trump's actions but also looking at the importance of stating that this type of insurrection is not only wrong in and of itself, it is wrong as a threat to the security of our country long after january 6. we need to be clear that there are constitutional consequences for incitement of insurrection whether they come with impeachment power or otherwise. the constitution gives remedies when there is this type of abuse of the oath of office by the president. host: let's hear from robert in maryland who opposes impeachment. caller: good morning.

i was just wondering how your guests feel about republicans ringing articles of impeachment against nancy pelosi, joe biden, chuck schumer. what happened on january 6 was a violent act. but jeffrey rosen referenced violence several times. in donald trump's speech, no way did he have anything about violence. he said we are going to peacefully walk to the capital and make our voices heard. i am wondering what your two guest feel about it republican sprott articles of impeachment against joe biden, nancy pelosi, and the other. host: what is the relevance of that russian? -- of that question? caller: if they feel donald

trump incited insurrection, it was a few hundred people out of thousands of people there. do we know when maxine waters made her statement -- you see people standing right in front of them and yelling at them. how many people because of wearing a mega hat -- a maga hat have been middle old -- have been ridiculed? guest: i think people from both parties should be subject to articles of impeachment when they engage in impeachable acts. i hope we are not entering an era where if it is someone from your team you turn a blind eye. if there is an impeachable act, people should be held

accountable. i think your particular example of seeing something that could be viewed as encouraging people to disrupt someone's dinner, that could be something you don't like, you don't like the instability of it, but when you look at the reason the founders put impeachment in the constitution, they knew it was a serious constitutional remedy. they knew it was something that should not be abused, it should be saved for high crimes and misdemeanors. by that they met betrayal -- they meant betrayal of the power given to our leaders and betrayal of the public trust, engaging with foreign powers to entrench your own power, using

the offices of the presidency for corrupt purposes. i would leave it to our representatives to if what you're describing -- i don't have representation in the senate so we will have to wait on that. host: mr. malcolm? guest: he raises a good point. when you see someone -- say if you see someone in the trump administration, get to -- get in their face and pushed back -- that could lead to violence. the question is if that language as opposed to "fight like hell to save the country," is that more likely to trigger a violent

spots -- violent response? the discourse on both sides of the aisle is terrible and the house and senate are supposed to take care of their own and far -- in regards to censoring or -- i don't like the level of discourse in this country. these are the times we live in and i hope people will look at all of these statements and say we can do better. host: this is roger in florida who is supporting this process. caller: i am glad you are around and you have a couple of tickets with us -- a couple of decades with us. the constitutionality, every time we call a business they call it a game, every time you call it a game they call it a business.

violence is here, violence is not there. trial, crime, political insight -- it is going to get you. we need young people to not get frustrated with these heritage folks. host: what are you wanting our guests to answer? caller: they really don't have to answer anything. mr. malcolm is just always going to have to respond and say we don't want violence and the president sat there three hours before calling for any kind of peace at all. he had no intention, he was like a little toddler. host: mr. malcolm, i will let you response to that. guest: you said i'm always going

to try to frustrate, it is not my desire. i have been on several programs with elizabeth and i consider it a pleasure. i am glad she is there to provide opposition so we can watch these out so the public has a better understanding. guest: thank you, john, for the kind words. it is important we talk about these things. there is a danger of treating it like a political game. i think it is a destructive thing. we can talk about different situations, acknowledging there are different situations. i feel we can talk about when congresswoman waters it cites an insurrection at the capitol but

that is not what she did. when donald trump uses the words "fight" over and over, that is an a specific -- that is a specific thing we can talk about. trying to be careful to talk about fact is so important and not trying to rely on whatabou tism is productive to having conversation. host: this is pat who opposes impeachment. caller: my question is twofold, if your intention is to prevent president trump from holding office, is impeachment to accomplish that? what happens if he is out of office, he could be indicted on a criminal charge. would conference -- with

congress have to take a vote to bar him from reelection or would that happen automatically? host: that is a good question, elizabeth wydra, go first. guest: on the second question, simply because someone has been convicted of a crime does not mean they can't run for office again. it is not innate immediate consequence -- an immediate consequence. in this particular instance, because we are talking about insurrection, as part of the constitution that bars people who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion from holding federal office. there is a question about how that could come into play that is separate from a criminal proceeding.

there are other mechanisms besides just this qualification -- besides just disqualification. there was that vote that a large number of republicans supported that suggests holding the trial with the president out of office is not constitutional. i mentioned the wall street journal piece who urges his fellow republicans to reconsider after that vote. i don't think we should count the thing out -- count anything out until we have the constitutional process and effects entity arguments have been made -- and the facts and arguments have been made. host: john?

guest: 45 senators said they do not think congress can have this trial. you not only have to get those to vote to convict, he would have to get 12 of those 45 to cross over in order to convict. it is only then if they get 67 senators and there is a conviction they can vote to disqualify. that vote can be important. there was a federal judge appointed by jimmy carter, i believe, who was accused of bribery. he was acquitted but was impeached anyway and was convicted in the senate and removed from office. they did not take that second vote whether to disqualify that gentleman. he's not, smith hastings from florida. host: our guest is john malcolm

from the heritage foundation, also joining us is elizabeth wydra, the president of the constitutional accountability host: you are going to hear from two former leaders in the senate, tom daschle who served as majority leader and trent lott who served as majority leader. they will talk about issues of the day and issues facing the senate now. we will have that conversation when washington journal continues. ♪

>> you are watching c-span, your unfiltered view of government. c-span was created by america's table vision -- cable television companies. we are brought to you by these television companies who provide c-span as a public service. with abide to ministration leading the federal response to the coronavirus pandemic, follow the latest at c-span.org, search coverage of news conferences as well as remarks from members of congress, use the gallery of maps to follow the cases in the u.s. and worldwide. go to c-span.org. two senate committees will hold

confirmation hearings for the nominee for director of the office of the office of management and budget, the first hearing is today at 9:15 a.m. on c-span3. the second hearing is on wednesday at 10:00 eastern before the senate budget committee. watch live today on c-span3 and wednesday on c-span. watch live on demand at c-span.org or listen on the radio app. >> the impeachment trial of donald trump who faces charges of incitement of insurrection begins today. watch our live coverage starting at 1:00 eastern on c-span two, c-span.org or on the c-span radio app. you can watch any time on demand at c-span.org. >> washington journal continues.

host: you will get to hear from former leaders of the senate joining us via zoom. tom daschle led the senate from 2001 through 2003, serving the state of south dakota. trent lott led the senate from 1997 to 2001. to both of you gentlemen, thank you for joining us. guest: good to be with you. host: can i just start with both of you because the senate is about to engage in the second impeachment trial of donald trump. you had issues dealing with bill clinton. what did you learn about the process? how could that play out dealing with the second impeachment trial of president trump? guest: first of all, the leaders need to communicate regularly every day. after the house voted on

saturday to impeach bill clinton, i wanted to make sure we could do the thing in a proper way and get to the conclusion where we could go back to work. i thought it would be relatively easy to agree on the rules. that took us a couple of more weeks. we can talk more about that if you would like. guest: i want to commend senator lott for the leadership he showed that process. he didn't have to call me. he made sure there was communication. that is the key, cooperation and communication. what is normally a very political setting, try to depoliticize it and stick to the facts. host: i don't know which one of you set it, looking at establishing rules, one of you

said compromise is not complicity. how did you go about making the rules and then stay true to the caucuses you serve? guest: i think that term probably came from tom. guest: compromise is not capitulation. it's the oxygen of democracy. when you are working through very complicated processes and issues like this, it does take compromise. it takes communication and coordination. compromise is the essence of that. guest: after that call to tom on that sunday, we went back to washington thinking we could come up with a way to proceed. it was not easy. it took us as i recall a couple of weeks. we wound up going into the old senate chamber, just the senators in that room.

we did not have staff and their to hash it out. bob byrd gave a tutorial on how to proceed. i was wondering how it was going to work out. ted kennedy spoke. phil gramm spoke. they seemed to be saying the same thing. we went with the phil gramm ted kennedy proposal. we went forward and figured out what that was. i think it was a unanimous vote. the fact that mcconnell and schumer have already come to an agreement of the rules to proceed, that's a good achievement. host: how much of establishing the rules back then was based on trust? how much trust you think is in the current senate? guest: i agree with trent.

personal trust is key. we trusted each other. we had worked with each other on other big challenges facing the senate. we began to trust each other and develop a relationship that has lasted to this day. it is essential. i like what i am seeing so far. it looks like in this context mitch mcconnell and chuck schumer have developed the trust necessary to move forward. they got an organizing resolution. they seem to be in agreement on the way to proceed. i like what i am seeing in the last couple of weeks. host: leader trent lott? guest: i agree with tom on that, as i usually do. they've got agreement on the rules quicker than we did. we were setting the precedent because they -- there had not been an impeachment trial in the

senate for a century. i was on the house judiciary committee. the nixon proceedings did not go to a vote because he resigned. we were trying to figure out how we could proceed. it did go on for over a month. we did have some depositions of witnesses. we did have several votes on -- it wasn't just a matter of a vote on the rules or the articles of impeachment. it was a long process. i think the leaders are committed to not dragging it out. they are hoping to get it done by next week. that would be a monumental achievement if they can get through the arguments in a satisfactory way and get to a conclusion. host: our guests have served as majority leader and minority leader of the senate over the years. can call us on the lines.

(202) 748-8001 four republicans. democrats (202) 748-8000. independent voters (202) 748-8002. you can text at (202) 748-8003. if you wouldn't mind sharing your impressions of january 6, this was the place where you used to work. leader trent lott, go first. guest: i was horrified. i worked in and around the capital the link for 39 years of my life. i really do view that building as our citadel of democracy and freedom. to see windows being broken out and police being shoved out of the way and eventually losing their lives, i was to the point of tears and depressed i what i saw.

i hope the leaders are giving some thought to security of the capital. i don't like the wire around the building and the fences and all that. there needs to be an assessment of the security in that building for the future. guest: you can't say it any better than that. i agree with every word trent just said. i served 30 years as a staff person at conga -- staff person, congress member. i used to give tours of the building and still occasionally do that. i fought back tears as well. it was a metaphor for politics in america today. i really lament that. it wasn't the desecration of a sacred building, it was the desecration of the political process. we are going to have to figure out a way to repair. it was a sad day, one of the

saddest days i can recall. it brought back memories of 9/11. it was an extraordinarily nightmarish circumstance we hope we never see again. host: as far as security measures, would you go as far as to leave a permanent structure like we see today or having more? guest: i must say, it was in 1968i was at college student and i came to washington for the first time. you couldn't find a security guard anywhere. there was nothing. i was just in all. -- awe. i regret that it has become so much more secure in its nature. it is necessary. i remember almost shedding tears

at a caucus, lamenting how much security had increased since he came to the senate. that has gone way beyond that. i don't know what the solution is. we can't ever allow this to happen again. i would hope it didn't require us secure steps like that. it's a metaphor for politics and democracy in america. the more we restricted, -- restrict it, that concerns me a great deal. security has to be a high priority. caller: i certainly agree with that. when i was in the house and senate, i worked with the leaders security. we did improve it some. our policeman just had a sidearm. we did not have our police on the steps with automatic

weapons. we did some other things in case there was some kind of attack. i wanted to put bulletproof class around the gallery to keep people from jumping out of the gallery. he didn't have that happen. the members didn't want to do that. i loved it when i first went there, you could wander around. i loved giving the tours. i looked for some of the things described in the book the lost symbol. it was special to walk into offices. these are different times. people know too much. people right now seem to be angry. we've got social media. i do think the leaders need to take a look at how to secure the capital without shutting it down to the american people.

host: i will get your thoughts before we take calls on president biden. he works with his caucus and in the senate in order to get things done over the next four years. guest: i am hopeful. when president biden talked about unity, i like that. they are struggling with doing a covid package so that it can be bipartisan and not too much expenditure but get help to the people. i worked with sender biden -- senator biden, including the iraq situation. we did bipartisan deals. i think he has a good relationship with senator schumer and senator mcconnell. biden was referred to as the

mcconnell whisper. they did come up with a budget agreement that lasted for about four years. i am hopeful. he's going to have a lot of pressure from his progressives and some moderates in the senate it can swing the vote when it's 50-50. one senator switches from the party, you've got a different result. i am hopeful for president ayden. i worked -- president biden. i worked closely with bill clinton. i worked with george w. bush. the people voted joe biden as our president and we should be supportive when we can. guest: let me just say, trent enjoyed a remarkable relationship with people in my caucus when he was leader. he was inclusive.

that word to me is so important. when i got elected leader, it was by one vote. i had a tenuous hold. joe biden called me and said i want to talk to you about something. he said you probably only got one chairman vote in the caucus. that's got to change. i would like to help you do that. include us. invite all of us to lunch every other wednesday. listen to us and hear us out. it could make a difference. two years later, one of the chairman nominated me for reelection. that was because i took joe biden's advice. i would urge him to follow that advice that he gave me.

invite the leaders to the white house once a week. invite both sides frequently. invite the leaders to camp david, talk about things you want to do for the coming year. those inclusive measures can go a long way to create bipartisanship. the best way to persuade is with your ears. he starts listening, he will start persuading. host: our first call is from pennsylvania. thank you for waiting. go ahead. caller: thank you for c-span. i am afraid i have to bring our problems back to you guys. you have shipped our jobs overseas. i was one of the ones that got laid off.

i had to move all the equipment out of the plant to go to china. you've never done anything to bring them pack. then you sent them over to mexico. you have to speak to somebody in the philippines. you emptied our country. detroit does not have the auto industry. it's all because of what you did when you were in the senate and in the house. when the democrats became republicanized that was the end of our democracy as far as working people go. host: you can start, leader daschle. guest: i can send my sympathies to the caller. he is sincere and expressed himself in a very candid and

articulate way. i think it is a challenge. we face a globalized environment. that environment is not going to go away, it's going to get smaller. we have an interdependency that is the way life is today. that interdependency has downsides. we have to do is much as possible to educate and to prepare and to train all of our workers to compete more effectively in a global environment, in an interdependent environment. we need to do a lot more of that than we have. hopefully, we won't get calls like this if we create policies to do that. caller: -- guest: thank you to the caller for winding up on a positive note. i think he is right. there are things we should have done differently in the 90's, nafta turned out to be a problem.

that is one of the things that president trump tried to deal with, trying to be more direct and trying to keep jobs from going to china. he did negotiate the treaty with mexico and canada. he got trade agreements with south korea and japan. there has been pressure on china. the european union, they were doing some things they shouldn't have been. now, president biden has to follow up on that. in some areas, we have gone too far, hitting the eu with tariffs. trade is a big issue. he is right. we lost too many jobs to situations and other countries. the leadership in congress needs

to think about that. they need to work on creating jobs and keeping jobs in america. it's not easy because tom is right. it's a global economy. we have to admit that and make the best of it in a number of ways. host: from south dakota, this is dylan. caller: good morning. we miss you, senator daschle. when i was fighting with the v.a., if it wasn't for you i wouldn't have gotten them. the caller before me blaming you, i appreciate you guys. i lost my wife to covid. i'm having a hard time right now. the lord willing, i am going to make it through this.

god bless you. i appreciate what you do when you were in there. have a good day. thank you. guest: you need to go first on this one. guest: i speak for both center lot and may and expressing our sympathy with your tragic loss. it is affected way too many people. it's been a tragic time for our country. you felt it personally. i am so sorry to hear of your loss. i am grateful to you for your kind words. you live in a beautiful art of the country, sturgis it's a place i've been to thousands of times may be. i hope you stay strong. i hope you endure and no we are going to do our best to get through this. -- know we are going to do our

best to get through this. guest: i expend -- extend my sympathy. that caller exemplified what people in south dakota are like. they believe in god and they support good government. i think that's one reason why senator daschle and i could get along. our backgrounds are similar. we came from low to middle income families. we lived in states with a lot of agriculture. we came from good hard-working people. that gave us a chemistry that allowed us to get things done. that was a great call on the republican line. host: both houses of congress are dealing with covid and getting vaccines out.

from what you have seen, your assessment of how they are dealing with it and what advice would you offer? guest: we would like for it to have been done that are or smoother or quicker. my wife and i have gotten the second shot. there was no reaction. we will take time to make sure it is ok. we are still going to wear our masks and look forward to getting back out. i think the fact that they developed the vaccine is quickly as they did is commendable. different states have done a better job than others. my state, the national guard has been fantastic. it wasn't just the sergeant doing the work, the general of the mississippi national guard was there walking the line, making sure everything was going smoothly.

now we have 30 walmarts that will be administering the shots. i do think they need to agree on another covid package. i think it's a little high. i know they want to help small businesses and schools. hopefully, they can get that done before too long. it's going to depend on how long the impeachment trial goes. some of the support on the stimulus will run out at the end of march. they need to get something done in the next month. guest: i agree with trent again. my wife and i got her first shot on saturday. it ran very smoothly. we have exceeded over 30 million vaccinations. we are getting better faster. i think we've got to make sure that we let science do the

talking. there is no room for politics. the more the science, the better off we will be as a country. another package is in order. the states and cities need help, small businesses need help, a lot of people who are unemployed need help. i hope over the course of the next few weeks we can arrive at some consensus as to what the package should look like. this is from columbus georgia. caller: good morning. i want to talk about the impeachment trial. i think we watched what donald trump did as far as refusing to give up and say that he had lost the election. i really believe that the capital attack on republicans

and democrats. i believe this was something our children will have to deal with over time because of the fact the response is it shouldn't be republicans against democrats. it should be about the fact that our lifestyle has been attacked, not just one particular party. i want to hear your comments on that. host: thank you. guest: i said a moment ago i felt the attack on the capital was really metaphorical for the state of politics today. trent and i have talked about in settings like this about what social media has done and how divisive politics has become, how controversial and

confrontational. i worry about where that takes us going forward. truth is just an option today. people have a harder time understanding truth. i think there is a lot of confusion about that. i don't know if i should say this, i think this lawsuit put people on the spot with regard to broadcasting the truth is intriguing. i don't know where that is going to take us. since trent and i have the good fortune to lead in the senate, things have deteriorated from a rhetorical point of view. it was tough then. it seems so much tougher now. to a large extent, social media is driving it.

we will have to figure out ways to deal with it. it culminated in that insurrection. i just worry that it could culminate in another situation, something similar to that if we don't address the underlining causes going forward. guest: i certainly agree with what tom was saying. things have gotten so nasty now. i want to thank the caller from georgia. i have been to georgia and enjoyed my time there. we are being nasty with each other. i was out of leadership in the senate from 2002. i got back in as whip in 2006. i was shocked at how much more difficult it had gotten to get things done in a bipartisan way, preferably nonpartisan way and how much meaner it had gotten.

i asked myself what do we do about this? i have concern about regulating social media. the government is going to be picking winners and losers. i don't like that. the solution is what is always the solution in washington. that is leadership. women and men say stop this, let's listen to both sides. leadership begins at the white house. i am hoping that joe biden president will say i am going to listen to both sides. i was pleased that he met with 10 republicans. he is having to deal with different points of view among democrats. if he will help tone down the rhetoric and some of the members of congress will do that, maybe we can begin to turn things

around. i am worried about how ugly it is right now on many fronts. host: this is vincent in virginia. caller: how are you doing? it's a pleasure to talk to you on c-span. can you hear me? i am an african-american republican. i say that with all reverence. the media has been very poor. i think this has to do with the rhetoric of donald trump. here is the problem i have with the impeachment. it comes down to two words, due process. due process by the house to bring an indictment. what they did was railroad an indictment through the house and laid that baby on the senate.

i don't like donald trump. i think it's reprehensible that even republicans would consider this. if you don't go through the process of an actual indictment, why should i have to do anything you send me? host: thanks for the question. guest: he sounds like he might be a lawyer. he talked about due process and a lot of what he was saying. even if he's not, i thank him for his comments. one of my favorite senators is tim scott from south carolina. he is a great christian. calling in on the republican line from virginia, i appreciate the call. i have some of the same feelings. with the clinton proceedings, i

was not happy when the house acted in the way they did when they passed the articles of impeachment because i knew it was going to tie us up for quite a while. then it came over to the senate and we were very careful to make sure we have other votes people wanted. we had depositions taken. we were very thorough. whether you like president trump or not, it has been moving very fast. it is a concern that he is no longer in office. you could argue the constitutionality of that. we are in a bad situation. we need to deal with it as quickly as we can and get back to doing what we need in the country to fight the pandemic and take a look at what's happening with the economy.

i am worried about the economy next year. i admit, we need to spend money to help people during the pandemic. guest: i am going to pick up where trent left off. one of the reasons why they are moving the way they have is the reason trent mentioned. there is a lot on the agenda right now. i think the key to due process is transparency. what -- it's going through what i would call the regular order. this is a single article of impeachment. it's not as complicated as it was the first time. that single article is based in large measure on what happened january 6. the facts are well known. it is in a matter of establishing the facts. when you get to the senate, there are two questions.

is it constitutional? most experts argue that it is. their primary argument besides with the founding fathers of said is you can't have impunity in the last month of office, doing whatever you want whether it's constitutional or not and never pay a price for it. that is what happened here. can you be left on accountable if you do something egregious in the last month? i don't think so. there is a precedent in 1878 when the person who did that and was impeached. does the president have a right to say anything he wants under the first amendment? that's debatable. you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.

those are the issues the senators will have to follow. due process really should be uppermost in the minds of people just as trent and i tried to make that the priority when we dealt with impeachment 20 years ago. host: one of the priorities you had to undergo was the power-sharing agreement from 2001. there is a viewer who texts us. is there a different between the agreement you signed in 2001 and the most recent one? what do you think its prospects are? guest: the power-sharing agreement is almost identical. i don't know of any differences. trent may more attuned to what the language requires. it seems to me as if they did what trent and i agreed to, to go down 50-50. all the way through.

we had a couple of provisions we think helped make it work. one was giving the majority a 10% administrative bonus. on a tie vote, either leader could take something to the floor to see if the tie could be broken. those helped create the chemistry required to get the organizing resolution passed. i sense that is pretty much with the two leaders agreed to this time. caller: i think it's almost identical to what we did. i'm glad they got that worked out. there are a couple of minor differences. tom and i had an informal agreement that we would not fill up the tree, where the leaders could block all the members. we agreed we wouldn't do that. i don't think mcconnell and schumer address that.

for the most part, they came up with what we did. it worked. over the next five months, we passed a tax cut, it wasn't as high as i wanted to be because we had to work together. we passed appropriations bills. we passed no child left behind education. i give a lot of credit to senator daschle that we were able to get it done and go to work. for the most part, we passed bills with both sides supporting it. we did go with regular order. people could offer amendments. we had extended debate. they need to go back to that. host: there is this discussion leading up to the election, the future of the filibuster.

what do you think that future is? you can go first. guest: it makes things difficult in the senate. when you have extended debate, it's not like it used to be. if you're going to object, you come to the floor and do it. it's one of the ways you force bipartisan agreements. they are going to do the stimulus through reconciliation, which goes around the filibuster rule and only takes 51 votes. there is a reason for the filibuster. it would be a mistake to get rid of it. i am proud of senator manchin. two democrats said they would

not do away with the filibuster. guest: one of my favorite statistics right now is we had cloture for the first time in 1917. for that, there was no way to end a filibuster. they change the rules in 1917. from 1917 through 1967, there were 43 cloture votes, 43 times the senate attempted to cut off a filibuster. the last two years, there been 263 cloture votes. that's all you need to know about the abuse of the filibuster today. my preference is i think there are traditions. the abuse has become -- this is a bipartisan criticism.

it has become abused. we can't continue to see that kind of abuse at the expense of getting good work done. we would go back to the -- requiring members to hold the floor. that is really what happened in those first 50 years. you had to hold the floor. i don't know that that can happen. we've got to recognize there is enormous abuse today and figure out how to deal with it. host: let's hear from victoria in michigan. thanks for waiting. caller: i want to acknowledge you at c-span. you are wonderful and we appreciate you. sirs, thank you for your service.

i am a naturalized citizen. i'm sure you hear my accent. i voted democrat and republican. the reason for this is simple. i vote according to who i believe will take care of the nation, not a party. republicans and democrats probably won't agree with me, my loyalty is to the nation, not to one man or one woman. you will not get me ever to say that a man or a woman should do whatever they want and get away with it because of the party they are in. i am sorry. i was taught this back in jamaica. show me you are a friend and i will tell you who you are.

i cannot justify because i am a christian and you are a christian, everything is correct. not so. joseph in the bible and pharaoh worked together to save people. i can certainly -- joe biden is not pharaoh. i can work with any president to strengthen the nation. the last thing before i go, what we are now saying as a collective nation, i put myself in the basket. what we are saying is because donald trump is no longer in office, we cannot punish him for what took place at the capital

where an insurrection took place. i say this to you, what you are saying is he had to a been punished while he was in office. this is how he would have worked out. he would have had to have overthrown himself. he would've had to of whipped up a crowd to overthrow himself while he is in office and qualify to be impeached. you are saying he is out of office. when does an insurrection take place? it takes place at the end of their years. that's when a coup takes place. that means that is when they would have been punished. host: thank you, victoria. there is a lot there are guests want to digest.

guest: i thank victoria for her calling then and for her story. i am glad that she is a patriotic citizen, she may raised sums -- she raised some serious concerns. i started out as a staff member to the chairman of the rules committee and the house of representatives. while i vote republican for presidents, i don't vote straight party tickets. i have had friends who ran in mississippi that i voted for. you have party loyalty, you want men and women of good faith and good intentions who were qualified and capable of doing the job. sometimes that's a democrat. that has always been my attitude. that's why i had so many friends

on the democratic side. i had a background working with democrats. we need more of that today. guest: i couldn't agree more. we need a strong conservative party, we need a strong progressive party. we need and ability for them to communicate, to listen and to work together. there is too little of that today. i yearn for the day when we see good thoughtful people coming together and taking those views and trying to find a way forward. that's what democracy is about. that has been a celebration of democracy for 200 years. we have always -- i think strived to do better. we have a lot of work to do. that is the essence of our democratic republic today.

progressives and conservatives and those who view themselves as and dependent working together to achieve our goals. host: is it possible to be a moderate in this day and age? guest: i think it's harder. i think the bases have too much say, too much vocal authority and dominate. they vote in primaries generally. if everybody voted in the primaries, it wouldn't be the same. it is the progressive and the conservative bases on the far right and far left who have a lot of power. primary elections become the more dominant of the two elections in terms of outcome. that has had a real reflection on the context of the conversation in the congress

today. it is more confrontational because those primaries drive the rhetoric and the rhetoric drives the debate and the debate becomes divisive. it becomes harder for moderates to be as engaged and successful. we see good examples of that in the last few weeks. guest: i certainly agree with tom. when i was in the house back in the 70's and 80's, we had 40 or 50 called boa weevils. these were moderate democrats that supported most of the reagan agenda. when i came over to the senate, we had more moderate republicans with two senators from maine. we had some moderate democrats like senator john role.

there is not much center left. you've got republicans who have gone farther to the right, democrats of gone farther to the left. to see susan collins working with joe mansion to font -- joe manchen to find middleground, maybe they can help shape the bill. when they had a series of votes in the budget last week, senator roger whittaker and the senator from arizona provided an amendment for restaurants. restaurants of really been struggling all across america with this pandemic. even little signs like that make me think and hope they can find

some common ground. host: rio rancho, new mexico. hello. caller: i have a comment. the thing that is going on in this country is everybody has gone too far right and too far left. republicans and democrats, they forget the middleman. we are the working class. the republicans smile and they want to help the wealthy. time after time, they help the wealthy. the democrats want to help the poor. i am a disabled veteran. you guys should be working for us.

we the people should rule, but we don't. the constitution was made for the people. my comment is, republicans have been giving to the wealthy. wealthy, wealthy, wealthy. the stock market is not good enough. it's doing record highs. the economy is terrible. the democrats want to pick us up because when we are working and doing everything else from the sweat of our back, i am 67 years old. i never took a penny from anybody. now i am disabled. i am not asking anybody to give me anything.

i have given and given. it's time to return it. host: that is manny in new mexico telling his story. guest: first of all, thank you for calling in and thank you for your service. i understand how you feel. i grew up in mississippi, my dad was a pipefitter union member. i understood working people. all of my neighbors worked at the shipyard. my mother was a schoolteacher. you are right. both parties tend to go too far one way or the other. we need to be thinking about how we can help people that are carrying america on their backs.

it's not always easy, fair is in the eye of the beholder. you've got to be conscious of the people who are pulling the wagon. we appreciate you calling then. guest: i agree with senator lott again. thank you for your service. we appreciate it. if you're one hunter percent disabled, you have had your trials -- 100% disabled, you had your trials and tribulations. you raise a very good point. this doesn't get the attention it deserves. we have significant economic inequity in this country. we have racial inequity in this country. both should be higher priorities. i think president biden from what i've seen and read and heard him address will make

these issues of economic inequity and racial inequity more prominent in his administration. i think it is necessary. it is a challenge for our country. as trent said, sometimes it's a matter of perception. the statistical evidence is clear. this country has reached a chasm economically in the last couple of decades that has to be addressed more effectively. hopefully we will see congress do that. host: from south carolina, this is bill. caller: yes, i think it's interesting to me that it took so long and so much money for the first impeachment and the second impeachment went very quickly.

i find it interesting that john roberts is not going to be presiding. i find it interesting that they've already announced that if the impeachment doesn't go through, they are going to hold a vote as to whether or not donald trump can ever hold office again. it just seems to me like the idea is to make sure in four years they don't have to face the man who got 74 million votes. i would like the opinion of both senators on that. host: thank you, caller. guest: that's a tough call. thank you for calling then. there is a question about how this proceeding has occurred, in

the house and the senate. there is no question the president was saying some things he shouldn't have been saying. how do you deal with that, especially if the fact that he is out of office now? chief john office -- justice roberts, he's not doing it now. it is going to be the president pro tem of the senate. he is not the sitting president. there are a lot of questions about what we are doing. i just hope we can get through it in a quick regular order. we can get back to doing the things we need to have done. we are in a tough spot right

now. we have a lot to deal with in the pandemic. we need to be paying attention to what we need to do with the economy. i understand what he is saying. there are many angles to that argument. guest: i agree. somebody earlier mentioned due process. i think it is important that we try to adhere as closely as we can to do what due process requires. i don't know if there will be another vote eliminating donald trump from running again. if he's not convicted, that may be difficult to pass. i have not heard that, that the senate is planning to take up that resolution. the caller may have more information than i do. it's important that we get through this.

it's a constitutional issue that has been laid out in the constitution itself. chief justice roberts interpreted the way the constitution is written as an option. since president trump is no longer serving that, it's ambiguous as to whether that requires the chief justice to preside. he has interpreted it as not to do so. in the next stage of this process, we emphasize the importance of due process and regular order. what i have seen so far in the agreement of the two leaders, it appears they have that in their minds as well. host: because you spent so much time in the senate and you spoke about the current state of politics, would you encourage people to get involved in

politics? guest: absently. our democracy is only as good as our involvement. there are only two ways to survive going forward, we have to fight for it as the caller just noted. if we are not called upon to fight for it, we have to work at it. that's a requirement from every citizen. it's participating at all levels, running for public office. it is giving back. public service is still a very important calling. i encourage -- am encouraged by the number of people who offered their candidacy, more women in the republican party than we've ever seen before. i am encouraged by that. i encourage those listening to

think of how they could work at it. guest: i would certainly do it again. i had a former staff member that was a congressman. he said why should i run again? even if i made the same dumb mistakes, it was a great honor. i have lived the american dream. to be a senator, what an honor. even though it was difficult at times, you have to be willing to fight for this wonderful thing we have. absolutely. people ask me now do you miss it? not really. i served my time in the congress. sometimes, i do feel guilty that i'm not still trying to make a difference.