tv Politics 2020 Election Panel at Texas Tribune Festival CSPAN September 30, 2019 3:43am-4:50am EDT
huwaei company, on regulating big tech. >> some of the social media platforms that are beginning to distribute news and have a news feed, individuals want to see them actually have a news director. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> with the texas tribune festival political strategist discuss politics, the impeachment inquiry, president trump and prediction first the 2020 election. this is just over an hour.
you saw on screen that if you were a member of the tribune and you want to give us a little bit more, if you're not a member or you want to become one you want to renew, we have a three-day get away in new mexico the liz lambert hotel. we will enter you into a drawing to become the winner of that great get away. if you become a member of the tribune this weekend. >> it works as an explanation about what you're going to hear. regular tributors to a range of network and cable shows.
a home game for matthew. applebee's america a retired political strategist with a long list of clients including bob bullock, california governor arnold schwarzenegger an president george w. bush. he represented florida's 13th congressional district. he's worked in specialty finance as an attorney and political consultant and he's taught at the university of south florida. today he's a political analyst for msnbc and cnn. [applause] give him a hand. right. elise jordan is a political analyst for msnbc and a contributor to "time" magazine. she was a speech writer to condoleeza rice and worked on strategy at the national ecurity council.
she served as director for hillary clinton's campaign and jon edwards' 2004 campaign. she's the author of "dear madam president." please give her a hand. and then finally rick wilson. a long time political strategist and maker of ads and a familiar face on msnbc. he's a contributor to the new york daily best. and haw author of "everything trump touches dies." wait. it gets better. his new book just announced with a january publication date is running against the devil, a plot to save america from trump and democrats from themselves. if only he would tell us what he thinks. please join me in welcoming him. [applause]
anyone who has read the whistleblower campaign raise your hand. anyone who has secretly talked to the whistleblower, raise your hand. all we know is what has been reported. david jolly, we do not know facts. what do we think about this whistleblower's complaint? >> that it will inevitably lead to donald trump being the third president of the united states impeached by the u.s. house of representatives. >> you stopped right there. that's the water's edge. >> i am hopeful that we see a calling of come conviction from senators like mitt romney. i know he has disa peter:ed some in the way he has chosen to take on trump. but he has taken on trump. those of you who have followed
me -- i was a republican -- but you have left the republican party. >> yeah, one of the areas i really get in trouble can when i try to get advice to the democrat speaker of the house. >> she's not here yet. go ahead. >> listen, i've had more urgency around the going to of impeachment than what i've seen from democratic leaders in the house. when the mueller report hit i thought the opportunity to move was right thrsm but i commend her and house democrats to say we're finally going to go down this road. the one thing that i do think is critical -- i think there's ample evidence right now for three very clear plain articles of impeachment. one, the president worked with a . reign leader and that constitutes an abuse of power. that's an impeachable offense as reaching the level of impeachment. the second would be the president on strucked justice on
the mcgann and the mueller report. the three elements are satisfied. the third is that' has on strucked justice from with holding information from the united states congress. those are three articles the house could speak to right now. why am i leaning in on this? because the decisions the senate makes will in large part depend on the democrats' able in the house to control the national narrative to move the country in this direction. and what we know from donald trump whether you like him or loathe him is he can control the narrative every day even with his own absurd behavior trmplet framing in the house is overbroad then that sets the house for a problem. >> it lax urgency. >> one part of your bio is that you were in the clinton a ministration during the impeachment of president clinton. ton. i'm sure it's a little bit of ptsd, right?
>> this is fine. >> you're ok with this one? ok. [laughter] >> is jolly right about this that there are obvious ways forward here for the house and maybe the senate on the basis of what we saw last week? >> yeah, i think it is -- you know, i seems unlikely that the senate will vote to convict him. but i think you cannot -- we don't know. that you can know what dynamic it set off when the country does get exposed to the arguments of the democrats will make. and you know, they have, you know, the speaker has said that she will -- that this is going to be limbed to ukraine. that they're not bringing in -- they're not bringing in the stuff from 2016. to david's point that could limit your able to make so progress in the senate. i understand why they're doing that. >> the senate is less likely to be receptive to impeachment in the mueller rem. but might be more likely because of this as a present issue. >> if you're -- you're limiting -- if you limit it to ukraine
which i think probably if i wsh in their position is what i would do in terms of being able .o rally the country behind you could be limiting your options in the senate. you're probably limiting how many articles you have. >> you're the one legitimate democrat on the stage. >> i'm the legitimate democrat on the stage. and these are all my friends. including evan. >> you know there are democrat who are upset at the speaker limiting the conversation just to mirle. democrat twitter is a flutter over the thought thiss that going to be limited just to ukraine. >> you know who knows what she's doing? >> the speaker. >> you know who always has the pelosi?ke nancy >> i do understand why she's doing. this i have a -- i have two experiences from my clinton
years about this. one is i'm gravely concerned the how this will impact country. there are a lot of american who are going to believe this is an entire setup. you've got to watch out for the people who don't vote for you too. my other experience is i know how much it matters who's on the inside of the white house during an impeachment proceedings. there were four moments that really stand out where it could have gone the other way for clinton. i don't think he was in danger of getting convicted in the united states senate. but he was definitely in danger of democrats because you know how we are. we can get wobbly in terms of supporting our own people that he would get forced to resign. one was the impeachment itself. david was that person on the
hill when bob livingston resigned as speaker. on that day. bob livingston resigned as speaker because he was caught having an affair with the lobbyist. >> it was really quick decision making on the part of the staff of the president about how we're going to handle this. he shouldn't have done this. t has to stop now. >> i want to ask elise somebody who has experience with the national security appear ratiss having served in that capacity in the past on the communication site. president talked to the president of ukraine about joe biden and hunter biden so here's that. we have an idea that the transcript of this call were intentionally buried so that people wouldn't see it not for security reasons but for
political reasons. the coverup is worst than the crime. and there are a lot of people inside if this is, in fact, true. there's another server, you know? >> it's crazy that this is actually what it comes down to, you know? after flutter e-mails not only do we have what hand next week but we have ivanka using a private e-mail account are the white house. but looking at this week, it's just shocking the carefulness that so many career officials who are not partisan within a white house, within the national security apparatus and how this records are handled. and how classified information is handled. nd you know, it was
i would have to sign in you would go into a skip. it could be amusing reading to see how the conversation is played out. not anyone could access the transcript, the write-up of the call. and so that they went out of their way to create a second way of storing a record that aid cording to the law, the law of the land that they have to preserve because it's an official record and doctored it. and there would be so many people involved in this process. i have no idea how their bureaucracy works within the n. s.c. but there would be certain career staffers that would have to look. the white house lawyers were involved. >> this is against the law what they've done. >> it's against the law. >> and there would have to be multiple people if it's true
implicated in an act without dispute against the law. >> it's so crazy that they were saying oh, but it's just records. >> mr. country over party. let me ask you where the impetus or imperative is right now. we have more than enough democrats alone if the impeachment inquiry provides reason for them to do so to vote to impeach the president in the house. we have that in the form of enough democrats. justin is the only nondemocrat in the house who has signed on here. when bill: don was impeached there was a baurnl impeachment, right? there were members of both parties that did. can this go forward if this is a democrat deal? >> barely.
>> it didn't feel that way. >> i mean, i make -- i would make both a principles argument and a political argument related to this. impeachment is a very difficult thing to do. not difficult for the country which is why it's only happened twice before, full impeachment in this. the problem we have today tween two elections, between the next election, the only manner that exists right now to hold the president accountable is impeachment because we have now accepted or people have accepted, which i think is ridiculous the idea that a president can't be indicted which is only written for nixon. rewritten for clinton. bush revised it. and then trump else white house has again reiterated it. if a president can't be indicted and a president can claim
executive privilege on almost just about anything now, and a republican party which is refuses to put guard rails on this president, the only way outside of november 2020 to hold this president accountbility -- there is no other way other than impeachment. so to me that's the principled argument that you have to do it. i don't think he'll be convicted in the senate. there's no way. i don't think richard nixon would have been impeached or what have resigned if they held the senate. he would have never gotten impeached. you can go back and look at the transcripts. republicans stuck with him for a lengthy period of time. >> is there not someone who can step up and cause the avalanche to happen? >> so is there idea that there could possibly be somebody? >> if there's one or there's two. amar alexander or mitt romney.
>> the theory is correct. i think mitt romney who has said certain things will -- will high tail it back to a safe harbor somewhere and start claiming that we can't do this to a president. i want to talk about something that's been -- split clifment i hink one could easily make a principled argument and i think he will be impeached fairly quickly. this calendar year fairly quickly. i don't think he will be convicted in the senate. i think somehow the democrats suffered -- that the republicans suffered during their last impeachment than when they didn't i impeach -- >> that's not true. >> 1-2,000. >> that's one example. the other example president bill clinton in -- in 1998 had a 65% job approval when he got impeached. donald trump has a 40% job
approval today, right? president bill clinton's job approval didn't go up. t stayed at 60 or 65%. the republicans didn't win as many seats which is not unusual for them when a president has a job approval -- so i don't think there's any in my view downside politically at all for the democrats even if it's partisan which it likely will be in the house because almost every republican will stand by the president. so from a principled argument and a political argument there's no in my view, no reason why not to hold the president accountable. >> you want to make it 5-5. do you think impeachment will happen? >> you think -- i think impeachment will happen. i don't think michigan mcconnell will let it see the light of day. i don't think there's any chance of that happening. mitch mcconnell is so vastly more skilled as a legislative operator than anybody on the democratic side. there's no pelosi in the senate.
chuck schumer is -- he's the guy you bring to the party because you feel sorry for him. [laughter] he doesn't have the skill to post up against mitch mcconnell. and he proves it every day. that's not like loving on mitch mcconnell. that's pure admiration -- even if schumer is not an political operator, he doesn't have the votes. >> and the political landscape isn't advantageous for shume tore go out and say, i'm going to hold all of you republicans that are up this time at risk. it's just not going to be there. >> matthew thinks they should go forward with this regardless o what the political continues consequences are. there is a concern out there not only brad parscale, the head of the trump campaign saying this going to benefit us splitly -- political. at a time where they're trying to beat corey gardener and susan collins. >> the democrats should pay
brad's salary to keep him in play. >> here's the thing where the democrats -- there is an advantage that trump is going to have. i'm going to be completely blunt about it. he's going raise $450 million. they're going to milk every granny social security check. oh, my god, unless you give give me $5, nancy pelosi will peachment and raise george soros. incumbent to this. this is a referendum on donald trump. if part of your referendum becomes a well argued consistent case that goes at donald trump and takes apart the construction and the malfeasance and the craziness inside this administration and the self-dealing and the idea that
the president is going to leverage and extort a foreign power to help him in the campaign if you make your impeachment case that way, i don't think that hurts you as -- on the down ballot races. i think that helps you, motivates your people. but the other thing is, it will hurt trump in a way because look, trump is what i call a fmblings ec -- a fecal iceberg. you see the top and it's terrible and it's stinky. >> this is the church boy. this is the church boy. >> you told me -- i remembered -- i don't want to be struck. but this -- this theory that there's always more and always worse below the water line is proven true time and time and time again with this guy. and until you the impeachment inquiry you lack the tools go under water and stare at the horror. [laughter] >> jen? >> rick always puts extraordinary effort into that -- i agree.
a precondition of what rick is saying is that democrats for a change would have to not snatch of t defeat from the jaws victory, right? >> and as always, your party has trouble organizing a two-car motorcade. >> of the focus on the message that rick is articulating about trump and count on that to be the only thing that you need? in this matter, i think you can -- i think enerally you cannot count on house democrats to stay on message because we care about policies, outcomes. we have different views about how we get there and we're going to fight about it. republican party, that's how it happens. i tolerate a lot of discourse in our party. i think on this matter there will be -- i think that there will be -- there's a lot of fear about tim packet of impeachment
on the -- the -- people like joe cunningham. he's a congressman from south carolina. he -- he won -- you know, he's got the worst district. he's got the biggest supportive of trump. people like that. and so there's going to be concern about that i think if they stay on target on message. but it's -- and i'm not sure -- i agree like i don't think it's going to hurt senate races either. it can be a motivating factor in that. and you know, the -- my other experience about this from that i'm sober about the impact is the life blood of the clinton white house. i think the day that bill clinton was impeached he had his highest approval rating ever. he was scene as doing the people's business. the economy was good. our life blood was we were focused like a lares on -- laser on the economy.
i worked in the press office. i was focused on impeachment. 80% of the staff were focused on policy the one place people weren't talking about impeachment was the clinton white house. the life blood of this presidency is grievance and controversy, right? so this is not actually -- impeach jment not a distraction for them. impeachment is their ballgame. >> it's gasoline on the bonfire. >> i understand that it's going to help them in some ways. but it helps them that's like 40% of the country. >> to jen's point there's two ways to think about the senate races as it relates to the political consequences of ill people ych. one that it makes it harder for the democrats to win the senate. you put susan collins, corey gardener and mart that mcsaly and say you are going to do be forced to do something you haven't done before. and that is choose this guy or choose not this guy. >> so the political consequences of the clinton impeachment in
1998 is that on the eve of the republicans impeaching clinton they won the popular vote across the nation. i realize congress does not work on popular vote. the same happened in 2000, they won the bush presidency. they lost to speakers. and -- in newt gingrich and that's mow they got denny hastert. and they did lose about four seats. i've got to say this over the political consequences of impeachment. and i mean this. who cares about the political consequences? who cares? because i -- this isn't a disagreement with everybody because this is an insightful panel. but i know as leaders have wrestled over the summer to how to make the political calculus around impeachment and the notion which is true that is --
it is hard for the country to go through, imagine if we don't go through impeachment with this president. and i really, really, really mean that. the founders gave the house a singular tool. one tool. only one tool. and it is to bring charges of impeachment. it is not to con template what the senate will choose as a pull. and if we have a house that does not stand up in this moment as we expect the senate will not stand up. it is not just the white house and the presidency that has been tarnished it's the congress that has been tarned for generations. >> can i ask you -- i have great respect for your point of view. would you be saying this if you were in congress? everybody is the tom brady of monday morning quarterbacking, right? >> so it -- it -- i don't waste people's time by defending my record in congress. the one thing i will point out is within 24 hours of donald trump calling if a complete and total shutdown of muslims
entering the united states, i became then and remain the only republican to take to the house floor and call on him to drop out of the presidential race and completely denounce donald trump s a candidate, as a man and a as a future president. >> so maybe you would --ry id d it. [laughter] [applause] >> should we be talking about rudy giuliani's role in this and bill barr's role in this? >> wow. >> i tried at one point. seriously. i think it would be interesting to have the conversation focused for them at least at the moment because they seem to be not bit players but stars of this drama. >> i've been not so shocked by rudy giuliani. those still shocked just because his behavior is so off the chart. >> he's even yelling at people on fox now. >> crazy, i mean, just insane. this is literally your foreign
policy has turn into pizza gate/infowars. what i found so amazing about the whole 'em episode is what pot of gold did they think they were going to at the end of the rainbow in ukraine? really from reading the transcript, donald trump thinks that a wealthy ukrainian has hillary clinton's server. [laughter] really. this is the level that we're operating at. we are dealing with, you know, trying to actually get peace in ukraine. we aren't dealing with anything of actual substance. we're dealing with donald trump trying to extort a foreign power. >> he's one of the most dangerous human being walking on two legs in america. i'll tell you why. he's put himself to service not to the law, not to justice not to norms and institutions but to
be donald trump's personal lawyer. he's using the power of the d.o.j. to protect this man in a way that's unprecedented since nixon. and even -- frankly he just hadn't been caught yet is why it's unprecedented. >> i do make the case and i know the speaker has chosen a different route. why i think the house should pass an authorization of an impeachment inquiry on the floor because it should it should include the vice president, the attorney general and the office of management of budget. and you define the investigation that way and you move forward. [applause] >> i think it is notable that all of this happened after don mcgann expected the white house. you have the white house -- a white house council who you may completely disagree with him but he was saving trump from himself. he was actually following the law. >> he was adult supervision. >> and then you look just in this whistleblower complaint,
the charges leveled against the white house council. i mean, i would be lawyering up and hoping that i have some spare cash because this is not going to do end well for a lot of people. >> this is question i want to ask you, matthew. the problem with the events of this week is that every holy shit moment is superseded by another holy shit moment. >> that's been the problem since the escalator ride. >> it's very difficult to keep focus on anything. [applause] >> in the old days something would happen that it would have hang time for a day. god for gid. right now, it's five minutes and nope, now you're moving on to something else. what happened? a whistleblower complaint was not turned over to congress. the law on this is black and white. the word is "shall." and now we found out who kept the whistleblower complaint from being turned over to congress. it was office of leem council. d.o.j., presumably the attorney general. a violation of the law.
unless i'm not understanding the meaning of the world "shall" is. >> this is the only mechanic niche that we have in place that's become lawless. i think they believe the president is above the law. the president believes -- they actually believe that. by virtue of everything they've done, they believe that but i don't think part of what's happened and i'll criticize republicans for being complete enablers of the president and lacking the courage. i criticize the democrats for not waking up fast enough to the threat that donald trump and his administration has posed and not using every means necessary to -- to throw themselves in front of this to try to stop it. i don't think they've done as good a job as republicans would have been doing in this exact reverse circumstances. but i think part of where we are today is we've given them a
pass. we've -- we've -- i mean, as a country, they have not been held accountable. every step of the way that donald trump has done something, he is not been held accountbility. every step of the way that a staff person unless donald trump geltz sick of them and they're jettysonned, and they suffer their own consequences, and we arrive here and say why wouldn't he call the president of the ukraine and say i want some dirt because he feels like he's unbeatable? >> a part of this that's a 30,000 foot problem is over the last two decades congress has given away more and more of its power. they've not taken the action to execute their poy we are -- power. and that's why this unitary executive theory that bill barr says the president is above the law. just the other day when the d.n.i. was testifying he said we on't view that he is above the
government because he's above that. >> the administration could be held accountable. and because congress didn't blow the whills right that minute and say time-out -- whistle right that minute and said time-out. constitution have you read it. guys like corey lewandowski and did everything but take a leak on jerry nadler's desk like an insult comic and lies to them and they did nothing. the correct answer was jerry nadler and say, sergeant in arms take that man into custody, you are in contempt. if the democrats did that and have the same sass that corey did, they would have dragged her out in handcuffs an strip searched her in the rotunda. >> your twitter feed on the day testimony -- wski
i was thinking what has the speaker apparently decided to do is to put the impeachment inquiry in the hands of the judiciary -- no, no, no well, the thought was we have skicks committee chairs. we're going to dump all this to the judiciary committee because at's where the articles of impeachment originate. schiff is more mentally agile and more aggressive. >> what would stop the speaker from deciding we need a different quarterback. >> i don't know if it's been confirmed that she has tapped schiff to lead the impeachment investigation to focus on the ukraine and to refer articles to nadler. and then it does have to go through judiciary. >> nadler more than a carrier pigeon. nadler will play a meaningful role. and schiff will play a larger role rather than maxime waters, cummings, the other committee chairs? >> yeah, i think what they have
to focus on if you're doing an impeachment inquiry, stop with five minutes and hopefully they'll have a hit on cnn. they need to lead out with pipe hitting lawyer who are going to come out there and are going to crush these people. and they need to drag these guys with the administration and come throughout with professional council that is going to force them to lawyer up so they don't perger themselves. it's going to force them to recognize that this isn't play fighting. this isn't boxing gloves. this is a bar fight. >> you know what's -- >> i want to say one thing about democrats and republicans. the fascinating thing as we watch this unfold is republicans have a generic incapacity to feel shame. democrats feel shame way too quickly. [laughter] >> the only people belabor talking points are democrat senators. [laughter] so yeah. first of all, all my former republicans friends have a lot
of critiques about how democrats have handled this. but i will remind theanch the democrats are the bulwark -- nancy pelosi was savvy enough to figure out how to hold a caucus, hold it together. you know, i have long thought that, you know, sure, i wish i believe it's a principles pls matter. the house has to impeachment him. what does it say to the country if the president is not held accountable? nancy pelosi probably had it in her mine. she was going to go in the fall. and she was going to go fast. because she thought that that was the best way to like hold the house together, hold the country together and like -- -- but like get this done. three months ago to me. >> what was going to be the catalyst for impeachment? >> i think it would have been in russia. and the other -- >> it could be so many different
countries. >> right. [applause] >> a couple of other things. here's something frightening for a person working the white house for 12 years, let me tell you that as chaotic as it appears from what we can see, it is way worse on the inside. let me just tell you that. s the way worse. i think what freaks the democrats out, you know, people who have not been on the front page before about that memo about that call -- i mean, i thought i was going to pass out when i read that thing. i had to put my phone down and clutch myself because i was like -- oh, my god. first of all, this is one thing we have seen. what have we not seen? like obviously, they did all his thing -- stuff with -- >> poland. >> with russia. nbc did a great time line of this. the ukraine, rudy, barr stuff happened in the spring. this has been going on for a long time.
and -- look at don jr.'s tweeting and the times when he feels tweeting about biden and ukraine. you match all that up, this is like been a major effort inside the white house for a long time so like first of all, of course, the russia stuff is more important than we know. and of course -- and like what else is happening? >> elise, it matters if the democrats get on the same page, have message discipline and if they care. it's more important if americans care. because if the democrats approach this as do a great job of managing people's expectations of what the investigation is going to entail or not entail and they keep the message, but the spub like, yeah -- the public is like i don't care about this so ultimately it won't have any impact. how do you get people to care about this? >> i am encouraged by the movement we've already seen in early polls. it's pretty staggering how dems took this leap and the country has caught up with them
essentially. and i want to see what plays out over the next week or two. but if i had to predict it's not going to do better. it's not like this situation is going to be more plattable or ethical. and the transcript of the phone call was damning. the whistleblower complaint was damning. it's a very easy one-sentence, the president tried to use your taxpayer dollars that were intended for our country's national security for his 2020 campaign. >> it's pretty straight forward. david, will we see the whistleblower complaint ever? will we see the whistleblower ever and should we? >> i think the whistleblower will ultimately testify to congress. whether the whistleblower's identity will be exposed will be a matter for congress. we know enough about the profile already based on what the "new york times" report out yesterday.
on the last question, politicians are leading indicators or lagging indicators. they move public opinion or they follow public opinion in a moment of national crisis we need politicians who lead public opinion. and my last criticism critique i would say that i am supportive of what the house decided to. do my last critique part of leading public opinion is you after y out of session mueller testifies and you can't believe for 10 weeks after this -- >> they're going into recess for three weeks, right? >> you've got to lean into this. otherwise what we know of donald trump, he is the only thing to cover them. i hate to put it that rudimentary. what does the press cover for two weeks if the congress isn't there and the leaders aren't leaning in? they're covering the white house. >> i don't know. i think -- i think -- i think -- my experience would tell me, i think the house could use that time to develop their very best
argument like go let him -- let trump do whatever he's going to do. it's not like they're going to be like oh, we're not interested in impeachment in two weeks. i think they're still going to be interested. they need to -- this is a new thing. they did not plan -- he may have had a secret plan to impeach trump but was not over this. i want them to have some time to get it together because some chairman are better -- and like, get together. >> update the nation on impeachment because we're going to have a new barr memo on the tuesday that we're going to be talking about. >> it's got to be tight and crisp and good. >> understand what totally hand -- >> i think what's -- i think it's vital that you keep up the operational tempo at all times because donald trump he depends on being able to upset the news cycle. there have been three big moments in trump's entire public exposure where he lost complete control of the news. the first one was pussy grabbing where he lost control of the
media cycle. >> that's in your church voice. >> yeah, it is. i wasn't the one doing the grabbing. the second one was kids in cage where is that story took on a momentum and a power of its own and he couldn't get in front of it. and it nevada did. and bled him dry ever since this. rightly so because it's a moral horror. i think the story has the potential to get away from him. he's having a lot of trouble -- he's been rage tweeting from the toilet like a lunatic. read his tweets and it is everything under the sun. it is some white, hot crazy. a couple t a -- got of minutes to go to audience. i want to deal with the president in the context how it affects that. nate silver thinks that impeachment is great news for biden and warren and terrible fuzz inner everybody else
because biden and warren are here. and everybody is here. impeachment crowds out any news cycle that allows anybody here to get to here. it freezes the race if place. jen? >> except this is all leading to iowa, right? so i think it probably does freezes the race nationally. but you know, iowa has proven the ability to walk and chew gum to let national events wash over that stay and they still stay focus on -- >> but of course, it is warren and biden who are in a lead role -- >> they are. but ask john kerry -- john kerry was at 4% -- >> at this point. >> we thought john kerry was going to drop out in september. >> iowa does fork na out. and they could decide a different thing. you know, it could be people -- i've been asked a lot about how it could hurt -- if it's going
to hurd biden seems the senate republicanses are probably due -- the notion that we're going to see hunter biden have to testify in the senate seems kind of high. they could try to -- they could try to make biden testify. but i would remind the of like how well that worked out for hillary when hillary testified on benghazi. it was a classic case of what did you think was going to happen when hillary clinton showed up? did you think she was not going to be prepared? >> i may have -- i may have forgotten my elementary government classes in college. but can the senate just have a hearing on something that seems to have no basis and facts at all? is anybody match the allegations against the bidens in a way that gives them any credibility at all? i thought the opposite was the case? >> diamond and silk were there in the fall. >> you are making a point that i forgot. >> i mean, we don't have -- part
of the problem we have here is, of course, there are no fact there is that represent anything that joe biden did. you could have a question, should hunter biden do anything in the ukraine while his father was vice president? there's nothing illegal there. the problem there's an ecosystem in the country about 1/3 in the country that believe -- all these things that we're laughing about oh, this crazy ukraine and this crazy stuff, they believe, because there's an ecosystem that the country greece. i agree with jen on this on the democratic race. it's first of all, the national polls are not such big leads that they matter. it's not like somebody's got a 40-point lead and is dominating the landscape. same is flew iowa. the big leader in iowa is at 24%. we have a bind or warren any given day. if the past is any predictor, p,
the democratic primary race will not be linear. which means that something is going to disrupt -- somebody will disrupt it. can biden still when the race and lose iowa and new hampshire? it is possible. bernie does when not finish in the top three? what happens if kamala harris or pete buttigieg surprises and finishes second in iowa? does that become the press story, not that elizabeth warren one that pete buttigieg finished second? it will not be linear. >> very quickly and then we will go to the audience. which of the democratic candidates from this vantage point would you prefer to be right now? you would prefer to be biden? >> warren. >> i think warren wins at all.
it is because of this. she is a perfect contrast to donald trump in two areas -- she is smart. [laughter] >> and she is happy. [applause] >> any democrat is better than donald trump. >> who would you be -- who would you prefer to be? >> anyone but donald trump. >> we will take as many questions as we can. call you think this phone that trump made has galvanized the democrats enthusiastically in ways democrats could not do? >> does anyone want to take that? beforeink they hated him but a lot of democrats now have an actual smoking gun that is
not overly complicated. >> does it galvanize the republican base? said i can shoot someone on 5th avenue and still get elected has been repeatedly proven. >> the base is going to upset us over the story and that is what the headline is on fox news. the base does not matter in this election. it is a sliver of people that are wavering a little bit. educated republicans, female republicans, the fundamental political realignment that we saw the start of during the 20 midterms. a the media has done disservice, they keep talking about the trump base. the democratic base is much bigger than the trump base. much bigger. if you think of people who strongly approve of the president against people who
strongly disapprove of the president. people who strongly disapprove of the president is that 46%. those who strongly approve are at 24%. whene end, swing voters -- a look at the last 3-d's, they are like -- last three days, they are like holy crepe. the democratic base is much bigger than the trump base. >> why is it not mandated era that phone calls with world leaders are taped? there is potential misinterpretation over poor choices and judging aspects to be recorded. we tape these phone calls? because of nixon. >> the white house stopped
taping phone calls during nixon because the system that allowed the president to record these calls ended up being the thing that took down the president. nobody since then, republican or democrat, has done that. obama's foreign leader calls were recorded. report,e whistleblower it refers to a transcript. the word transcript of the phone call so it mary -- very well may be. credibilitylower's seems to be fairly strong. the white house can't decide how they manage themselves. >> the opposite side of the phone call was recorded.
>> you know what that means. punking thet be white house in the end. back -- i amget praying trump is not reelected -- how do we get back to the thatized and respect others have had who held the office before. how do we get back there? >> is this the new normal or is this a unicorn. of time and we will go back to the old normal after this. i think there is a singular person in donald trump who has given permission to this kind of behavior. when i look at the democratic field, i don't see a single person who will eventually become president if the
democrats win that would get permission to this type of behavior. i think civility will come when a democrat meets donald trump. [applause] republicans other running for president. is this even worth the air leaving our lungs to talk about this? >> i actually think it is fantastic for other republicans to attempt to primary trump. i do a lot of focus groups with a british polling group and we have gone around since the start of 2016 and we are probably at 75 to 90 focus groups and even among the most hard-core trump supporters, we have been really surprised by the openness to a primary challenge. they know they could be doing better. even the base is completely in
love with this guy, they know he has a lot of deficiencies and frankly, the unhinged tweeting even annoys the base. while they might not step up and vote for the primary challenger, it reinforces donald trump's negative. >> i know there are republicans for the rule of law, i look for republicans for civility. i am glad that mark sanford and joe are in the race because flicker to a tiny the world that even these flawed men -- they have their different that wes, addenda era elected a president that has the moral landscape of donald trump, aen those flawed men have
little bit of heroism to say i am going to stand up against this overwhelming force. hello? my question is about mitch mcconnell. i know you're talking about barr. i heard that in kentucky the polls are really bad for him. i would like you to comment on his role and his chances. >> i want to have a reality check about mitch mcconnell for you. kentucky voted for donald trump, i think it was r plus 30. mitch mcconnell will be able to drop media rights made out of titanium to find his campaign. he will have $100 million if he wants it. go fight a name. go fight in colorado. you are not going to take out mitch mcconnell. i amnot doing it because
sure living mitch mcconnell, i am doing it because it is a resource question. x you owe -- if you have dollars, are you going to spend those in maine? in colorado? don't throw money on a bonfire. >> you have a better chance of beating john cornyn in texas the mitch mcconnell in kentucky. [applause] >> now i am going to pander. let's talk about john cornyn. you brought it up. do you give the democrats any chance to beat him? 50-50,n't think it is but i give them a chance. watch what happened over the last 10 years. there is a movement in texas. texas has been a red state but it is much more of a red state along the lines of western states that along the lines of
alabama and mississippi. it is more of a western state with its level of independence. i think john cornyn is still ofored, i would not die shock if he lost on election night. it depends on which democrat faces in. texas is going to become a swing state. when texas becomes a swing state, which could happen in changehat is a landscape for the united states when texas aves from a red state, to light red state which it is today, and to a purple state. [applause] >> the electoral math is harder if republicans don't count on the electoral votes from texas. >> knowing that there might not senate,l trial in the
and the house proceedings being the best case for the democrats to make the case to the public, you talked about how they would like to move speedy, but knowing that people like rudy giuliani privilege,executive what is their strategy to get the best testimony to the public versus speed? >> you have officials of the administration refusing to comply with subpoenas. when i grew up, who thought you could decide just not to comply with a subpoena? >> take that man into custody. >> how do you get access to the information you want? russia, youhings have a 200 page robert mueller report that is already there. for ukraine, the president it and so did to rudy giuliani. he already said he did it. what house leader should do is say here is the schedule, we are
going to vote on impeachment in six weeks. if you don't want to testify, we are going to vote with our without you. if you want to defend yourself, come up here and defend himself. >> called their bluff. >> there is enough information to go to a vote right now. >> my question is related to twitter because i follow everyone up there. only 22% of the population uses twitter in the u.s. we continue to put the president's tweets out on stream media and basically broadcasting it everywhere. is there any reason why we should cut that down a little bit? it is damned if you do, damned if you don't. he is the president of united states and leaders are taking
what he says into account. we have to report what he is saying. we can't just ignore that this story is happening. there are ways of reporting on his lies as to state clearly this is a lie, this is not true. i think a huge mistake of the 2016 coverage was running his rallies in fall without any fact checking and giving him a platform and allowing him to spew lies. >> that is not happening. i saw someone cut away. [applause] >> i don't think i have seen anyone before do that and say we have to stop airing this, the president is lying. >> nicole did do that. cnn the same time put up a fact check while he was speaking and said not true, not true. times is not my
favorite publication. michael crowley from the new york times did a great job -- he had a story that referred to unsubstantiated claims by the president about biden. that is it. don't need to say hunter's name, you don't need to sell ukraine, you can just say of substantiated claims. -- unsubstantiated claims. >> the president's tweets are official statements of policy, they should be treated as such. he is unhinged, morally unbounded at a terrible human being. you should welcome the fact you can look into that every day and you can't get bsed. the tweets are real, the mumbling and weirdness israel, is real.irdness
twitter is an eye into his psyche and you should treasure that. >> i wish we had two more hours. we do not. please give our five panelists a big hand. see a later, thank you so much for coming. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]
[chatter] journaln's washington live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up this morning, we will discuss impeachment inquiries toward president trump campaigned between 20. wallacecal leader jim will join us to talk about his new book on faith and political polarization. watch c-span's washington journal live at 7:00 this
morning. join the discussion. communicators,he tennessee senator marsha blackburn, chair of the judiciary committees task force on china's hallway company in the u.s.. antitrust issues on regulating big tech. >> some of the social media platforms that are beginning to distribute news and have a newsfeed, individuals want to see them actually have a news director. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span two. campaign 2020. watch our live coverage of the presidential candidates on the campaign trail and make up your own mind. c-span's campaign 2020, your unfiltered view of politics.
go shopping and see what is now available at the c-span online store, including our all new campaign 2020 t-shirts, sweatshirts and hats. browse all of our products online. >> c-span's interview with democratic presidential candidate marianne williamson in our washington, d.c., studios. this is just over 30 minutes. over 30 minutes. host: what motivated your desire to run for president? marianne: i think for a lot of people, once donald trump was elected president, nothing was the same. i don't think i'm the only person who has thought about what we are going to do with our lives now. so much shifted after