tv Washington Journal 10202019 CSPAN October 20, 2019 7:00am-10:03am EDT
history of impeachment. he has written a book. as always, we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter as well. "washington journal" is next. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: good morning, campaign 2020 moving to one of the in the rallies so far election cycle. 20,000 people in attendance in new york city, alexandria ocasio-cortez endorsing bernie sanders in his bid for the democratic nomination. andegin with your calls comments on this question. when it comes to voting for resident, do endorsements matter? do they influence your vote? opening up the conversation for republicans, (202) 748-8001. for democrats, (202) 748-8000.
if you are an independent, (202) 748-8002. you can also send us a text message and we will read that at (202) 748-0003. or send us a tweet @cspanwj and as always we are on facebook, facebook.com/cspan. a number of developments over the weekend, including this front page story from "the new york times," boris johnson forced to seek a brexit extension. we will have that story with jason douglas of "the wall street journal." and a tweet overnight about the g-7 summit, originally scheduled to take place at the doral in miami, florida, the president with this tweet last night --
i was certainly surprised that came out last night. primarily because they had been signaling for some time that this was the place the president wanted to go. that it was his decision and basically he didn't really care about the criticism that they had received. roundclearly turning his his feelings about that. makes me wonder what changed. did not get any worse yesterday compared to friday and one wonders if maybe they heard from the foreign leaders that would be coming, or legalgot some other analysis about how this might impeachment inquiry with regards to the emoluments clause. or whether he just decided it was another story he wanted to throw out there. yes, i would say it was a surprise. the white house and the president seemed quite determined at the end of last week to go forward with this.
let me share this with you, the editorial from "the washington post," "blatant corrupt self-dealing." really been a lesson in what the founders put in the constitution. can you explain? the constitution in the founders, as you referred to, did not want the president or leaders to benefit from their time in public office. so, that is largely what the emoluments clause is. you have to think as we talk about this that perhaps the president either saw the editorial that you are referring to their or the culmination of criticism and figured look, this is still a year away, the criticism will continue and the
g-7 summit will be overshadowed by that criticism and perhaps he is looking to -- this would be june of 2020, just a few months and his bide vote for reelection. maybe it's not the kind of publicity he wants for the entire year. but yes, to go back to your theinal question, that's reason the founders, that's the background for what the founders were thinking with that in the constitution. host: we are talking to jeff mason. in the last part of the tweet, the president indicating that camp david would be a possibility. what is your read into that? why would he mentioned that specific location, which would not seem to be of any large enough for what we would need for the g-7? it's reallynk fascinating. camp david has been used before. president obama used it as a
location for the then g8 during his term in office. the trump folks have been very critical of that decision, saying it wasn't a great venue, people were unhappy with that. which isn't true. people weren't unhappy with it. but it is a much different, much less grand venue than what the president was looking for here with his property and, no doubt, there are other venues around the country that they looked at. mick mulvaney referred to this last week in his press conference, saying that they look at several different venues and i don't think that camp david was ever on the list because it was something they were more inclined to criticize. tot said, there was ease having camp david being the venue during the obama administration because it is so secure and it is not a place where you, where protesters can get very close to. it was rather intimate in terms of the setting.
in that sense, perhaps they decided that it was all right for president obama, let's consider it now, too. the comment from mick mulvaney to basically get over it when it came to not only the decisions of the g-7 which have since been rescinded but also the situation with ukraine, what kind of reaction has that had inside of the white house? guest: in general within the white house i think that people feel it was a blunder. although i think they also feel that the reaction in general was disproportionate to the mistake that he was making. that is in line with the criticism that the president and his advisers like to use and use blaming the media
for a mistake that a chief of staff made. he did try to pull back his youents that friday about, know, what at first seemed like a confirmation of a quid pro quo with regards to the president's decision to add one point ukraine military aid to in exchange for, the suggestion was it was in exchange for, concern over other countries -- exchange for concern over other countries that ukraine had interfered in the election in a debunked theory. mick mulvaney several hours later saying that the media misconstrued it. the acting chief of staff is expected to be on one of the sunday shows he -- later today. finally, what is the story that you are working on this week? guest: you know, steve, i think
just following up on the impeachment inquiry and developments of last week, but also the developments with regards to syria and turkey. there is expected to be a meeting between the president of syria and the president of , this, vladimir putin week. it will no doubt illustrate the effect and impact of this decision by president trump to regiontroops from the and how it affects what critics will say about russia. continued fallout from that from republicans and democrats with regards to president trump's decision. further developments in hearings with regards to the impeachment probe. sundayt is in the newspaper, this from mitch mcconnell, calling the president's decision in syria a grave mistake, that we should point out that he never
mentioned president trump i name in the editorial this morning. and he didn't have to, it was clear who made the decision. the mitch mcconnell op-ed piece was scathing and it is an example of how upset the republican party and republican lawmakers are in washington about president trump's decision. really -- it has been really remarkable to see people like mitch mcconnell and lindsey graham who had been so closely allied with president trump, being very critical of that. and it comes at a time when reppo -- the president needs support from republican senators because of the increasing likelihood of the possibility that the house will impeach him and send articles of impeachment to the senate for a trial. jeff mason, we appreciate
it. guest: my pleasure, steve. host: this from 538 and nate silver, the question of the endorsements, do you think that they influence your vote? this endorsement could matter, writing the following. "historically they have been a good predictor of presidential primary outcomes in terms of how they dissipate how the vote will eventually turn out. the theory is perhaps best articulated in the book "the party decides," coming under attack in recent years -- 500 38,at from available online. this yesterday, part of our live
2020, in queens, the rally of bernie is back. this from alexandria ocasio-cortez. [video clip] february -- >> in february i was working as a waitress in downtown, manhattan. i worked shoulder to shoulder workers whoented often work harder and hardest were the least amount of money. i was on my feet working 12 hour days, with no structured breaks. . didn't have health care i wasn't being paid a living wage. that iidn't think deserved any of those things. that, that is the script
that we tell working people here and all over this country. that your inherent worth and value as a human being is dependent on an income that another person decided to underpay us. to what we are here to do is turn around that very basic logic. it wasn't until i heard of a man by the name of bernie sanders -- [cheers and applause] recognize ando assert my inherent value as a human being that deserves health care, housing, education, and a living wage. from representative
alexandria now in her second in the house of representatives. our phone lines are open now. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 four republicans. "bernie sanders returning to the trail with fresh endorsements and challenges. this from 538, how endorsements could matter, nate silver writing the following -- --t: let's go to leave, and lee, joining us from alexandria, virginia. caller: good morning. i am not at all impressed that
aoc endorsed bernie sanders. i am a little curious about who the uaw will endorse. my favorite candidate, amy klobuchar, was with the union striking employees. i am interested to see who might endorse them. i am also very in favor of democrats for life of america and i would like to see a little more diversity in the democratic hearty. host: why is the -- democratic party. host: why is the ua do -- uaw endorsement important to you? caller: i grew up in the suburbs of detroit and the auto workers are important to me, i am fond of them. host: thank you for the call. you can give us a tweet, @cspanwj, and the line for democrats is (202) 748-8000. the line for republicans, (202) 748-8001. if you are an independent, (202)
applause]d i am more than ready to take on the greed and corruption of the corporate elite and their apologists. ever toe ready than help create a government based on the principles of justice, economic justice, racial justice, social justice, and environmental justice. [applause] to put it bluntly, i am back. that is the headline from "i am back." we carry it live as part of our campaign 20 coverage. mike is joining us on the phone
from janesville, wisconsin. good morning. caller: good morning. i listened to endorsements from different people because i don't have enough time to go into depth on a lot of subjects i could think of. , listen to michael bloomberg if he endorses anybody. or if elijah cummings would endorse someone. someone whose career has been a big effect on politics. i'm not able to keep up on all the subjects. it's all very interesting to me. i don't think that they sway me a lot, but i do listen to people i respect as to who they are going to vote for. i didn't really think about that until your program this morning. i thought i made up my mind on my own, but i guess i do listen to other people i hold in high esteem. good.very let's go to gym in georgia next.
caller: good morning, steve. it society day here. host: sorry -- it's a soggy day here. host: sorry about your braves. not really. [laughter] caller: i'm great to see bernie back in the saddle. he's fantastic. he brings a lot to the table in terms of bringing this country forward. i think his democratic opponents have some challenges. especially biden with the way that he handled the situation with his son. not to in any way endorse trumps actions, which are deplorable, in the least, and traitorous, probably, anyway i like, i do but i think that the things that happened with his
son, i mean those are some pretty big, looming questions for him. is that a deal breaker for you in terms of the former vice president? caller: it could be. i don't know a lot about it. i am disappointed in the media, focusing on the trump aspect of it when i would like to know more about what really happened with biden and his son and all of that. it's not a dealbreaker for me necessarily, but i like to think that bernie is saying -- but i do like what bernie is saying and this endorsement is very good, too. am guardedly optimistic about bernie. i hope, i hope that he can push the goal over the goal post, so to speak. like georgia did so well yesterday. anyway, that is my take.
thank you for the call. michael with this take -- host: donna is joining us up early from salinas -- don is joining us, of early in california. caller: sometimes they impact my vote, sometimes i don't. i'm very curious about this. aoc is a kind of inflated balloon and i want to see how much she moves the needle in this deal. this will tell a lot. she really stuck her neck out. she might turn out to be a paper tiger. can i say something? host: sure. caller: you were touching on the row with the first person you were speaking to this morning. i have a real quick thing to say
, the real losers here are the state of florida, employees of the rall and businesses surrounding it. it's a sad thing that happened that they are not going to do this g7 at corral just to please a bunch of trump hating ninny hammers. it's a sad thing. for the call. here is how politico is writing about the event, "bernie sanders at one ups elizabeth warren." saturdayng a speech on to a crowd estimated at 26,000 people, the largest number any democratic candidate has drawn so far this year, joined by alexandria ocasio-cortez, who made her endorsement officially on stage." notquestion is whether or these endorsements matter. karl joins us on the republican line. guest: last time a -- caller: last time i talked to you, you
were defending hunter and joe biden. pretty much. host: i said let's get to the facts. caller: would you want them going to china to negotiate after his son received that money? i don't think so. from the television program are in jail right now for committing fraud trying to get their kids into college. ok? elizabeth warren committed fraud, taking the position of a minority. elizabeth moorman -- elizabeth warren took it claiming to be a minority. a two-tiered justice system, i don't know what is. i studied something. the corruption in d.c. goes both ways, republican and democrat. but you folks ought to point it
out. if there is corrupt politicians, pointed out, let us all know about it. way or the other. when you see corruption, pointed out. thank you, carl. that is something that we try to do every day on the network. endorsements affect the way that you vote, walter? well, good morning, everybody. host: morning. caller: i think the problem here is that a lot of people have just got too partisan. swampy stufflot of to go on. they tend to ignore their own party's swamping us, so to say. i think that what we should be doing is in the name of partisanship, call off every
swamp creature and do away with them and start dealing with honest people. you for the, thank call. st. paul, minnesota. democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. i don't really think that the endorsement of aoc is going to matter much. it doesn't surprise me at all. she is going to pick whoever she thinks is the most progressive candidate. in her case i don't think that the endorsement really hurts or helps them. it doesn't surprise me. but on the corruption i think that corruption starts at the top and if you are really going to argue that we should have a less corrupt system, you have to look at the president on down. the president is doing things all the time that are constantly pushing that line. it just a blurs the line for everybody else and it makes it
so easy for us to just devolve this into a conversation about, you know, well my guy did something a little less worse than your person, so on and so forth. i think it will be difficult for us to get out of this when we still have a president who is freely just pushing whatever boundaries, laws, or however he views it, because he views everything in a transactional manner. that's what i think. is joining us next. your answer to the question about endorsements and how they influence your vote, earl? it depends, sea. it depends on who makes the endorsement about who. i find it interesting. i used to be a democrat. am a the it that. -- vietnam that.
for 58,000. would be an cortez interesting vice president. it's a shame what the democratic party did to sanders. i might vote for that ticket. i doubt it, but i might. except for what the democrats have been pulling for the past two and a half years. they started this dam impeachment the day before he was elected. you know what? obama, i raised $58,000 for his first run and not a dime on his next one and the reason, steve, is he was going to end the wars act uptead he everything. host:
earl, it is 4:27 in the morning in redding, california. why are you up so early? caller: i have got the -- i will be honest with you, sir, i have got a sleep disorder. i am up this early every morning watching your program and i love the coverage. host: thank you for getting up early, good luck to you, thanks for joining in the conversation. want to share with you this story from "the new york post." says trump may be impeached in six weeks, facing a challenge from bloomberg and hillary clinton." article. part of the "the white house needs to start thinking about impeachment more seriously. this is serious. as sure as the turning of the earth, he will be impeached by pelosi in the next six weeks." he said so in a wide-ranging interview with "the new york post," "speaker pelosi is very
serious and if the president makes it out alive, he may have to face surprising and viable challengers in 2020 from mike bloomberg or hillary clinton." the trump campaign with new ads taking aim at house democrats. let's watch. [video clip] >> they couldn't defeat him. now the swamp is trying to take them out. first the mueller investigation. now ukraine, politics at its worst. president trump, changing things. it isn't pretty, the swamp hates it, but mr. nice guy won't cut it. it takes a tough guy to change washington. it takes donald trump. i'm donald trump, i approve this message. attacking the president by any means
necessary. >> the entire whistleblower complaint seems like hearsay. a political set up. >> fabricating evidence. >> making crap up. >> it's nothing short of a coup and it must be stopped. >> i'm donald trump and i approve this message. host: those ads from the trump campaign. more here from the reporting in "bannon york post," says he is dismayed about this uncoordinated approach to impeachment. disastrou
host: getting back to your phone calls, on the issue of endorsements and whether or not they influence your vote, joe is joining us from south carolina. caller: hey, steve. how are you doing? i'm happier than a redneck at a tractor pull. , iss your heart, brother have never used an alarm clock in my life, if i get over four hours it's a bonus day for me. i'm up every morning, it's just the way my body works. but sticking to the question, this is probably what you meant, but i'm going to take another tack. if a wealthy and successful hollywood celebrity endorses someone, i typically do not vote for that rosen. there is so much apocrypha from
that group of people. and i know not all hollywood celebrities are very left-wing, but the majority of those who they have more money than they could ever spend. so they are telling people how to tax me and get money out of me to support programs. hey, give some of your money away, pal. coin, ither side of the do listen to endorsements and if someone gives me information i haven't heard yet it gives me a chance to look into it and i find something, they may influence me. someone who says -- those people on the border down there drinking water out of a toilet, and if i look that up and find not how the units are made, i will say no, you slide -- you lied. the real thing is i have done this research and i listen to
c-span because you all don't spin anything and just listen to the people talk. i'm an independent and at this point i've been thinking about what if a democrat or republican wins. is the guy that could probably work with the other side, the right, more than anyone else. he's there, you know? he's a career politician. he's not a socialist. win,dimmer -- democrat did he would be my guy. my party, the constitution party, doesn't have a candidate yet. host: we are always glad to hear from you. we appreciate it. thing, steve, i hope you had a nice birthday. host: thank you very much. once a year as you get older, we celebrate. you can send us a tweet, @cspanwj.
our phone lines are open, we want to hear from you whether you think political endorsements matter. ,202) 748-8000 --(202) 748-8001 that's your line for republicans. (202) 748-8000 four democrats. this program is carried live on the radio every morning and we welcome our viewers and listeners in great britain on the bbc parliament channel. jason douglas will be joining us on the phone from london in about 15 minutes. i want to go back to nate silver , about how endorsements matter, he writes "regardless of her strategy, senator warren has received conspicuously few endorsements. she is fourth in the tracker and received only four endorsements from members of congress outside of her own state and has not received many endorsements in early states like iowa and hampshire. if the sanders campaign uses
endorsements to build momentum towards that strategy, the kinder and gentler version of sanders trying to make voters feel at home in his coalition, it could be a turning point for his campaign. if instead it is a precursor to the more left on left infighting, probably less so. jeff is next. good morning, jeff. caller: the political endorsement, that doesn't really move me to vote for someone. i would just research whatever, research any accusations and, voters havel of us our own responsibility to research before we vote. i mean i'm just very happy that the president that we have in the office now is our president.
whoever he endorses would convince me. because donald trump's endorsement is probably the first endorsement that makes any different's since i have been alive, and i'm over 50. because donald trump is the only person that really tells the truth. he is it not afraid to insult or to just be honest. political correctness has really been the downfall of our society. thank you for the call. scott, ohio, good morning. good morning. , endorsements are important. especially when you have a growing movement in this country that is happening right now. i am referring to the bernie speech and the aoc endorsement of him.
it's very important. because it solidifies a relationship. without relationships, things don't get done. aoc, andhat bernie, all of the progressive movement, it's going to happen. aoc called for it and bernie will deliver. and for the very first time, progressive policy could be implemented. all we have got to do is implement it. it could work. host: thank you for the call. this is from bobby -- caller: good morning, fred -- host: good morning, fred. caller: i'm not concerned about the endorsements. i'm more concerned about the greed, the propaganda, and the
and all of the misleading of the american people. it's to the point in america now reallyt's going to affect our ability around the world. , whonk elizabeth warren started the consumer protection agency, would be the best candidate for president. call.thank you for the john, mechanicsville, new york, republican mine -- line. caller: good morning, steve. great show. i would like to say that i'm not really that impressed with endorsements. it has always made me wonder how someone like aoc, who has no background in governance -- i mean she has never up until recently held any kind of elected office. democrats just plucked her out of obscurity. people place a tremendous amount
of weight on her words, which is just amazing. the fact that she endorsed , to many people, might be a negative. obama goes up and he endorses trudeau. how does an american president cross borders and endorse a candidate from another country? it just seems that these endorsements are visceral, they are emotional. people identify with a character like a hollywood celebrity and all of a sudden just, you know, take that as, you know, something that they bond to. and it's just disappointing. i just would encourage anybody that when they see and endorsement like the previous caller cited, they want to do their own research. they want to look into it and not be swayed or influenced by these people who might beginning notoriety in another field who
somehow think that it is going to happen. last thing. if lebron james came out and endorsed a major political candidate, all due respect to lebron james, he's a phenomenal basketball player, but where does his political savvy come in? i would encourage anybody that if you are going to look at a candidate, despite the fact that you might hate trumpet because of his rhetoric and bombast, the best thing to do is look at it factually and objectively and make an educated decision. thank you for adding your voice to the conversation. we appreciate it. this is from our friend, mylan burke, who sends this tweet. host: thank you for that. this is the editorial that was released two days ago and published this morning in "the new york times," mitch mcconnell calling the president's decision
host: again, that from mitch mcconnell, taking aim at the trump administration and the president, though he does not mention the president by name. back to your phone calls, on the issue of political endorsements, do they influence your vote? john, thanks for waiting. good morning. one endorsement i'm really looking forward to is al gore's endorsement. if al gore endorses warren or biden,, perhaps even although i would be a bit surprised. i think that could really have an impact. just because the climate debate is so potent in the democratic
primary right now that if there is one endorsement i'm really waiting for, it's that one. john, thank you for the call. ralph, good morning. guest: endorsements -- caller: endorsements have an influence on me when they come from people like rush limbaugh, who has a time -- you has the time to give reasons for the endorsements, where i don't have to spend time trying to reinvent the wheel to come to the same conclusion. host: ralph, thank you for the call. this is from brian -- host: that from our twitter page. the president talking about china and trade, saying that their pace of growth is hitting a 30 year low.
mary with this tweet -- this tweet -- host: richard is joining us from california. good morning, richard. i don't put much weight with aoc or any of those new representatives. they make a lot of noise, but they are not speaking to the majority of the people in the country, believe me. the country is moderate. that is what the democratic party has got to get in their head. they are not looking for pipedreams. they are just looking to get the country back to normalcy from the insane situation that we have with trump. i mean he is just a disaster. disaster.t
probably not going to be able to impeach him, you have got the spineless republicans too worried about the elections in their party to stand up for democracy and the constitution. i would say that if obama or someone like al gore came out with an endorsement, that would have some weight with me. someone who has been a proven executive with a good track record. for me, i just think that biden is the candidate. no one else has executive experience. he knows how to deal with the senate, congress, legislation. he knows the foreign leaders. who do you think guided obama question mark obama didn't have that much experience except for four years in the senate. that's what i'm hoping for. host: thank you for the call.
the president, upcoming rallies in tupelo and lexington. we will have coverage of that, this information comes from the trump website. a number of democrats in iowa, we will be covering that as well. phil is joining us from michigan. good morning. caller: good morning, america. host: republican line, should just point out. ,aller: this one influences me in the sense that there was a 70% chance i wouldn't vote for bernie and now there is a 100% chance. it's ironic how much socialism is coming out of the original 13 colonies. host: some developments out of great it in, the house of commons meeting and averting a vote on the brakes a deal. london, jasonm douglas, following all of this for "the wall street journal."
explain the significance of what happened yesterday at what the path is moving forward. they were supposed to have a vote on whether or not to approve a withdrawal agreement based on the agreement from boris johnson. rather than doing that, they kicked the vote into the long laws, triggering a requiring mr. johnson to seek an extension to the deadline. what we are expecting next is the government to bring the vote back pretty quickly. possibly as soon as monday or moving to the next stage of the brexit process, this legislative slaughtered trying to get everything done so that they can leave on time. was a talloctober order.
so the current deadline is now january 21. assuming the eu agrees. host: i have to ask you why this now three-year process has been politicallyed, so divisive, and now with a third prime minister trying to dealing -- trying to deal with that, beginning with david cameron, then theresa may, and then boris johnson. guest: sure. the big reason is that is such a divisive issue for everyone, right? the country was more or less evenly split about leave and the split is reflected in the political parties of westminster, within them and between them. proposing that problem is the fact that neither mr. johnson or theresa may had a majority in parliament and were unable to do the usual thing in british parliaments, where they can be run through pretty easily.
they have instead just have these endless sort of battles with their own side, opposition parties trying to find a deal that works. no, it doesn't actually look like the new deal that johnson brought back from europe may actually get through parliament. onalthough this vote saturday kicked to decision into the long grass, the numbers actually look pretty good for it. not a dead uncertainty, but when this vote, this bill, sorry, when this deal comes back, it wouldn't be a huge surprise if he actually managed to get it passed. unfortunately, that's not the end of the brexit ross s. parliament will still be scrutinizing it line by line. that is when we might start to see people try to insert little changes. trying to tie the hands of the government.
we are talking with jason douglas, he covers british politics and economic issues for "the wall street journal." familiar with london, they can get a sense of what it was like yesterday with the no brexit chant echoing across the streets of london and by some estimates, one million people protesting brexit. explain what you saw yesterday as he tried to walk through the streets of the capital. sure, yes, there was a huge protest outside parliament as the debate was going on on saturday. parliament has become a focal point -- focal point for protesters on both sides. the debate yesterday was organized by a group that is seeking to have a second referendum on brexit. basically with the goal of overturning the results of the first one.
and they of course run into, as they always do at parliament, a bunch of people protesting in favor of brexit. it was pretty large yesterday, i think it was mostly well-paid. lots of people carrying banners and so on. a carnival atmosphere, uglier moments but nothing too serious. yes, these marches are actually pretty frequent now. very quickly, walk us through the next step. you said this is coming back on tuesday? that's right, the government is trying to nail down the agenda, we should get another vote on monday or tuesday and at that point mr. johnson should have a pretty good idea as to whether or not his deal is going to pass. it will be a pretty big deal for him if parliament signals they are going to ratify it.
and then we get into the legislative slaughtered to figure out the votes and the scrutiny around the actual detail of the brexit deal and that will probably consume the next couple of weeks. u.k. mayery lucky, the leave by october 31, but it's more likely that this will drag on a bit longer. jason douglas, the headline is available online at sj.com. we appreciate it. as the process continues to unfold, we will be your network as we cover the house of commons. another article from "the new ," the prime minister leading -- leaving 10 downing street yesterday.
influence your vote? jeff, republican line, good morning. caller: hello, hello. hello? host: yes, you are on the air. the "washington journal" unfortunately endorsed clinton and it didn't help her. i wish that "the washington journal" which show the details of the withdrawal. the withdrawal that of the -- that obama did was completely anti-american. happened just now? it protects americans. difference. "the washington journal" never went after obama. it's amazing how double standard your reporting is. i watch you just because i know you are the enemy. that's all i got to say. ont: i have to correct you that point, in 40 years this network has never endorsed a single candidate.
this from david -- ryan is joining us from topeka, kansas, democratic line, good morning. good morning, everybody out there. you are not the enemy. these people are just wrong. when we withdrew from iraq, they wanted us out of there. they were killing our soldiers. it was a big mess from the beginning. this is totally different. plus, george bush put a date for a withdrawal on their. obama just stuck with the date. it's ridiculous. everyone wants to talk about joe biden and his son? let's talk about jared kushner and his $500 million loan that he got from the prince of saudi arabia. wantedder why everybody trump impeached from the beginning?
he's a crook. he was a crook coming in. just think what would be going on right now if you would have released his taxes. we would not be talking about any of this going on. i think they ought to put a bill, a law. if you will not show your taxes, you are ineligible for the presidency of the united states. thank you, c-span. this headline from side of ," "testinggton post the military code of silence." audrey, good morning. caller: good morning. i do not endorse trump, that's for sure. he's corrupt all the way through. my favorite candidate would be amy klobuchar, she makes common sense. i would like to hear more from bill weld. everyone ignores him because --
i don't know why. on that point, if i could just promote something, this friday at 8:00, we will have a conversation with former congressman bill weld. we invited congressman walsh to join us. his schedule would not allow us to have him in the program, he was going to be traveling, but at least two of the other republicans running will be here at 8:00 for a live conversation and hopefully you will call in. caller: i will be listening. thank you. did you have a second point? ok, we will go to bill joining us now from orange park, florida. republican line. caller: i just want to tell steve, you know, maybe i listen to too much c-span, if that's possible. but anyway, when steve and
brian, when they come on? when they come on, don't they wonder why so many people call them liars and everything else? there are these hosts on here that are strictly democrats. you can see them. when greta gets a call for a democrat, she eats it like -- it's it up like they are having candy. host: your point is what? caller: the first hour of steve tobrian's show, they got except all these dirty calls from people because of what the other hosts are saying. caller: well, you're talking -- host: well, you're talking to steve. but i should point out that everyone here, greta, pedro, , we are really a reflection of what's happening in the country, what's been talked about in the newspaper in a cross-section with americans
expressing their points of view. we don't take a point of view. some people might look at it one way or the other, but if you watch this network and what we do every single day, we strive and alance and comity civil discourse of ideas. bill, thank you for the call. we appreciate it. we are going to continue the conversation in a moment with michael barone. a reminder, our cities tour continues as we travel to toledo, ohio. on american history tv on c-span3. we look at the story of how ohio and michigan territories fought over the right to claim toledo. the toledo war goes back to 1787 in the northwest ordinance
established the area that eventually became five states and they established a border that started at the bottom of lake michigan and ran east to lake erie. the strip of land that was formed was called the toledo strip and it was formed by two different surveys. wedgeifference is like a shaped strip that was five miles wide at what we know as the indiana border and eight miles wide by the time it reached lake erie. wedge that ohio and michigan started to wrangle over. the whole point that both ohio and michigan were focused on was what back then was referred to as the port of miami, miami being the indian term for the .iver
both michigan and ohio wanted to be part of that. on top of that you have the eerie canal opening in 1825, people flooding down across new york and lake erie into this area. people really recognized the value of the canal system. now you have the miami-eerie canal being built. by the 1830's, people see that as a reality and understand a terminus must be built in this area and both michigan and ohio wanted that. host: toledo, ohio, our c-span.org cities tour continues that weekend -- this weekend on c-span3's american history tv. also online at c-span.org. we travel to northern ohio and the city of toledo which according to our next guest is the class capital of the world. michael barone is joining us with his book, good sunday
morning and thank you for being with us. guest: thank you for having me on. host: let me begin on chapter two of your book because you say quote, let me start by describing what i believed to be the enduring character, the political dna of our two major political parties. what is there dna? guest: they change their positions on issues over the years. these are very old parties. the republicans started off as the protectionist party and became the free-trade party around the 1970's. with president trump they are now the trade party. the enduring character is that the republican party has always been founded around a core constituency of people who are considered by themselves and others to be typical americans, but they are not a majority of the population. the democratic party has always been a coalition of people who were supposed some time to be typical americans but who together can be a majority.
they don't always hold together and we get schisms and fights within the democratic party. evendynamic has continued as the composition of the republicans core constituency and the groups of the dem credit coalition have changed -- democratic coalition have changed. party formed in 1832 to reelect andrew jackson. in republican party formed 1854 and opposed the kansas-nebraska act in the territories. they succeeded on that in a decade or so but they have continued ever since. host: your introduction, going back to election day, writing panic is a poor guide. the 1980's.osses in guest: each political party has had its disasters. you'll hear productions from
some people that the republican party in 2016 won the presidency , is about to disappear into permanent minority status. i have heard similar predictions about the democratic party. they persist through political disaster, much worse than either party has suffered currently. republicans in 1932, democrats in 1920, they emerge as competitive within a decade and they have overcome third-party challenges of considerably greater significance than we have seen in our time with ross perot in the 1990's. i think there is something fundamental, and enduring character of these parties that has provided for political expression and choice from a population which has always been diverse, ethnically, culturally, economically diverse.
religiously diverse. since the beginning of the republic when they were british colonies. to that point you write the following, quote, both parties have changed their policies adapting to economic and demographic service -- circumstances. in both parties, they have tended to provide a congenial though temporary political home to the large majority of americans over many years. the fact that they have been stress for so long under despite massive setbacks will provide the basis for thinking they will pass through the stress test being ministered by donald trump, his republican fans and critics and his democratic opponents since they have passed through even more stringent times before. guest: i continue to believe that. the news gives me challenges every week because there was a lot of clash. rhetoric thatt of
i happen to find personally unfortunate coming from all sides. they have gone through tougher times before. somebody said to me, where could you find evidence there has been more political discord in america. i said how about going to fort sumter in south carolina where the fighting in the civil war begin? we have gone through our periods of real discord, of a literal civil war and the parties endured during that and they will continue to endure in the episodes that we are seeing now. host: the title of the book is how america's political parties changed. you also write this. whatever the diversions is from donald trump -- is from donald trump, they do not prevent him from winning near unanimous support from republican voters. theresidual strength of
american parties seems undiminished and perhaps stronger than ever. guest: you look at public opinion polling today. 85% to 90% identifying themselves as republicans say they support donald trump. they support him over potential opponents including william weld. they continue to be very strong. the composition of the republican party changed somewhat over time. broaderseen even divergences, sudden shifts in support of a political party. bryan, jennings nominated by the democratic party in 1896, repudiated the policies of the incumbent democratic president grover cleveland. cleveland endorsed the republican candidate. lots of votes changed. many more changed. people going from democrat to
republican or republican to democrat. they did so in the 2016 election when you compare it to the elections immediately prior. we have seen these revolutions before. host: could you explain what we are seeing or not seeing in this republican primary. in 1980 when senator ted kennedy put up a formidable challenge against then president jimmy carter over 9092 when pappy cannon became a formidable opponent early on to george h w bush, many attributing that to his loss in november 1992, we are seeing them -- a number of candidates challenging president trump, but none of them seem to be making marks in terms of polling or traction. guest: that's right. we are seeing adhesion to the party leaders and i think you will see adhesion among democratic voters on the democratic side to opposing donald trump. that i callriod
polarized partisan parity. than 53%has won more of the vote in a presidential election since 1984. ago.is 30 something years now clearly are liberal and clearly conservative parties. the political scientists of the 1950's put on a campaign, they had commissions and things were they said we need to have a clearly liberal party and a clearly conservative party. we should not have liberal republicans and conservative democrats. they got their wish and other political scientists of today say this is polarizing, these people are attacking each other, we don't like this. it is what their predecessors in the 1950's wanted. host: this is a syndicated columnist in the washington post , referring to republicans in
texas voting badly for the gop. the texas tribune festival which we covered a couple weeks ago, he made the point that republicans seem to losing 2020 in order to rebuild as part of what he had to say. [video clip] >> division has been a constant of the republican party until now. at the 500 day mark of the reagan presidency, he had the support of 77 percent of republicans. on the 500 day mark of the trump presidency, he had the support of 87%. there is less dissent in the republican party than ever before. it is his party which is why those of us who care about the two-party system think what should happen in 2020 is the republican party gets obliterated. you get in on the old story about hitting the mule over the forehead with a two by four gets his attention. something needs to be done to get the republicans' attention.
host: your thought on that sentiment from someone who has not been a fan of donald trump but was an early supporter of ronald reagan. guest: he has made a comment on my book on how america's political parties have changed. george has written that he is not a republican anymore. he does not identify with the republican party. he gives many people advice in many directions. he would like to see a different republican coalition. i think the republican coalition may change over time but looking back over the last 25 years since the 1990's, since bill clinton broke the democrats, the republican's suppose a lock on the presidency and newt gingrich broke the -- broke the support -- the supposed lock for the democrats on the house of representatives.
the democratic coalition has become gradually and suddenly more upscale, higher education, high income people have moved toward the democrat party. one of the problems of the republican party in texas is that those affluent voters in houston and dallas which had stayed quite heavily republican decided in 2016 and more so in 2018 that they didn't like the donald trump republican party and they sorted voting more democratic. republican party has become more downscale. ernest hemingway was asked how do people go into bankruptcy and he said they go in gradually and then suddenly. the real -- republican party has changed gradually and more suddenly into a party that is downscale demographically. the democratic party has turned into a party which is for upscale demographic -- more upscale demographically.
the wall street journal had an article delineating how that is happening. that is the change we have seen to the point that hillary clinton, temer credit nominee in 2016, is now boasting that the democrat party carries the most affluent congressional districts and most affluent counties in the country. when i was growing up in michigan, where at that stage, the 1950's, the republicans had support from affluent voters, they did not go around bragging that rich people were supporting them in there for everyone else should defer to the rich people. i found that senator clinton's comments were a little bizarre. host: our guest is michael barone. he is a former washington post editorial staff writer. he is the co-author of the almanac of american politics and currently a senior fellow at the american enterprise institute. his work is available online. you, not know this about you have traveled to all 50
435 congressional districts? guest: i perhaps rank with the c-span bus and getting around the country. when i started writing this almanac on american politics, i was the lead co-author and it occurred to me that i had not ever set foot in most congressional districts. i set about in my travels to make sure that i did and eventually when i landed at pitt stevens airport in alaska in february 1998, that was my 50th state and 435th congressional district. i have kept up with redistricting so that when they change the boundaries, i make sure i have been to all of the district once again. host: our guest is michael barone. before we get to your calls i want to get to your reaction to this editorial in terms of where it leaves senate republicans. this from senate republican leader, it has been a grave
host: published today in the washington post. guest: senator mcconnell is ofressing what a majority house republicans expressed by voting for a resolution last week condemning the u.s. withdrawal from syria. a relatively small number of troops we had there and in effect, endorsing some of the arguments he is making. it is not the first time that congressional members of political parties have opposed a president's foreign policy stance. late 1930'sk to the and early 1940's, we were debating whether or not to aid britain in world war ii. supported --sevelt
britain when it was standing alone against the nazis. host: our guest is michael barone in the book is called how america's political parties have changed and how they don't. let's go to jane joining us from california, crestline. -- democrats line. followinghave been the republican mayor of santa barbara. his father fought -- [indiscernible] lost for lost new york, on a and he ended up in
san francisco in 1850's. california after becoming a state, they were almost going to be on the side of the south and that is when the republican inty became small california. the call highlights the serious experiences people had in the revolutionary war and civil war, world war ii. it influences political feelings for a long time. , one of mynerations favorite subjects for a successful bar bet is what was john f. kennedy's number two state for percentage of vote in 1960? a massachusetts catholic democrat, liberal on the issues,
his number two state was georgia. we think of georgia as a conservative state. why was georgia voting so heavily democratic? shermaner is that marched his union troops through georgia only 96 years before. people were still voting against sherman's march. marchcommemorating that brought hackles of jimmy carter's back. those experiences have purchase on people's minds long after they have existed because they are so difficult. why did we have somebody conservative democrats after roosevelt and the new deal? one reason is that southern white voters who were descended from people who opposed the civil war, who had been supportive of the confederacy and many but not all cases
continue to vote democratic off of that experience, decades and even a century before. host: that sounds like a jeopardy question. let's go to greg from alabama, republican line. good morning. do you see any similarities when we look back, you saw the parties take a little change in the voting back from kennedy's assassination to the vietnam war. protests, a lot of anti-american sentiment and we ended up going through watergate, we had a huge turnout to vote for jimmy carter. do you see any similarities bernie's and elizabeth warren with jimmy carter? canal, iway the panama
think i paid 14.25% interest at our credit union for a vehicle. with the ideals that we have the lefteems progressive's hating america with some of the rhetoric and we are leaning back toward that jimmy carter. do you see any similarities in that swing? personally i'm going to vote for bernie. i think we need to have a change and have a tough time and bring america back around to common sense economics. host: thank you for the call. guest: some of the examples of jimmy carter's policies during his term as president in the 19 -- in 1977 are in line with the democratic party being the party tending to favor more government control, aid to people which
became democratic party policy during the administration of woodrow wilson to some extent, but even more so under franklin roosevelt. historically the democratic party had been less a government party in the 19th century when it was founded. it was against having the bank of the united states, it was against a central bank, against free-trade, lowering tariffs, balancing the budget and president andrew jackson a limited the national debt for two years in the 1830's. the first democratic president. the parties do change positions over the years. one of the interesting things about jimmy carter's policies on economics is while he tended to favor more government spending and control then the republican party of his days, he also was a major supporter of the regulation, communication and transportation. frank the deregulation of
-- freight rail and we have the best freight rail industry in the world. we had the deregulation of trucking which president carter supported, senator edward kennedy supported. the deregulation movement was bipartisan. thehave republicans in gerald ford of administration and the ronald reagan administration supporting it and you had ralph nader who was not a partisan figure at that stage and is not a supporter of either party now but ralph nader argued that deregulation would be better for consumers. i think that has proven to be true. that hashe one affected most americans in many ways, airline deregulation. we used to have the days of little silver salt and pepper shakers and airports but the
price was so high that the majority of americans could not afford going on a plane. if you ever have been at the orlando airport, get the idea that there are a lot of americans that can afford a family vacation by aircraft and that is thanks to deregulation. that is an achievement that president carter can take pride in. host: chapter 14 is a surprising new political battleground in the midwest and you make the following point that of the 100 electoral votes that switch from democratic to republican votes between 2012 and 2016, 50 were in the midwest. ,0 were in pennsylvania specifically west of netra philadelphia. -- of metro philadelphia. pittsburgh,cranton, meadville. guest: another 29 electoral votes in florida, large parts of
which are full of mist -- of midwesterners and people who were raised there and have those values. one of the big divisions in american politics, and it is new, since the 1990's, is that between our major metropolitan over, metro populations one million, there are about 50 of those and half the people in america live in them. half of americans live outside the major metro areas and if we want to see where the largest change in votes come, if you are comparing 2016 with 2012, or with the very similar electoral 2000 and even of 1996, where you see the votes change in favor of donald trump and against the democratic party, it is the out statement when, the midwest beyond the major metro areas. the one state in the midwest that was soundly democratic was
illinois. why was that? two thirds of the vote are in metro chicago and that has trended democratic since the 1990's high with high income people voting for the democratic party. states likedwest ohio, michigan, wisconsin and iowa either have no major metropolitan areas in their states. none of iowa's 99 counties is in a million plus metro area or those metropolitan areas are a lower percentage of the state total. consequently, that proved to be fertile ground for donald trump and treacherous ground for hillary clinton. host: the book is titled how america's political parties changed and how they don't. our guest is michael barone. a friend of this network. joe is joining us from new
orleans, democrats line. caller: good morning. tagging on to what you were just discussing about the voters in the areas with the electoral president feel that obama described that area of the as saying they cling to their bibles and their guns. that has proven to be true. tagging on again to , membersat republicans of the republican party now, their economic status has changed to lower income people and donald trump played to their privilege.ing white
the way i see it, it is fear not so much of losing white privilege, we don't have racial segregation mandated by law anymore in this country and haven't for more than 50 years, jobs in somelosing cases. there has been some serious economics studies that show , theary to what i thought closer trade relations with chinaand the exports from cost many more manufacturing jobs in america than most of us forecast. there was some reaction to that. i know that the caller talked about the comment that barack obama made during the 2008 campaign, clinging to their bibles and guns.
as she mentioned that, i thought there was also an issue of something of constitutional rights. clinging to your bible, the first amendment gives us a right to freedom of religion and the free exercise thereof. you are entitled to read your bible if you want to. guns, the second amendment. the decision of the supreme court in 2008 and subsequent decisions say there is a personal right to keep and bear arms in this country and that some gun-control legislation, not all of it, is prohibited by the constitution. those things are pretty fundamental rights. they are examples of how our founding fathers and the framers of the constitution and the bill of rights understood that this was already a diverse society. when they were writing the constitution and the bill of rights in 1787, they were familiar with the history of europe and the british isles
were you had religious wars, wars between people of different religious views trying to oppose -- impose them on other people. they took the position that you had freedom of religion and they said the federal government and congress shall pass no law regarding an establishment of religion. some of the states had a set religious establishment. churches supported by state tax that persisted in massachusetts and connecticut into the 19th century. virginia famously got rid of its established religion with james madison and thomas jefferson leading the fight to say there is no established church but the counties had been settled by different religious people. massachusetts, catholic proprietors in maryland , quaker proprietors in pennsylvania. the founding fathers said this is a religiously diverse country. we are not going to try to have
the federal government impose a religious uniformity in this country. we will have total freedom of religion and free exercise thereof and people can choose whatever religion they want. it is one way that you make a continental size country with diverse origins from the beginning operate successfully over the years. host: we are taking your text messages as well. this is from northern virginia saying what would it take for a third-party to upstage the two main parties and gain more equitable power with them? guest: it would take quite a lot. history tells us that. president whoer had won a second term by the largest percentage ever recorded up until that date decided to lead a third political party and was allowed to run again under the constitution. suppose that president got his
party on the ballot in every state and ran congressional candidates in a majority of these non-one-party districts across the country. that actually happened in calendar year 1912. theodore roosevelt became the candidate of the progressive party. he finished a strong number two. william howard taft finished number three. party had just about all the political assets you could think of. universal knowledge, very popular and highly intelligent gonees stop by 1916 it was -- figures. by 1916, it was gone. you had third parties operating in wisconsin. theater roosevelt was back on the publican team and endorsing republican nominees and when he
died in 1919 he was considered the favorite for the republican nomination in 1920. we might have had a different roosevelt as our four term president if theodore roosevelt had not died at age 60. i think we have had a test case. it is real hard. and theember districts electoral college are structural factors. my argument is that there is also the fact that the parties have this enduring character, provide a home for people that identify with that core constituency, thought of as typical americans. they have a home for people who identify as members about groups in the democratic party. that has persisted over a long time. we welcome our radio audience on c-span radio which is streamed on the web on c-span.org and siriusxm.
every sunday morning. joyce, thanks for waiting. you are on the air with michael barone. caller: hi. typicaldering what a republican is because from my point of view, i have lived 70 something years and was always a democrat and now i am independent but they were always more concerned about their taxes. it was always the issue i could tell you who was republican by their point of view on taxes. i live in a mixed neighborhood but if you want to go to the luxury homes, they were all trump signs. wealthy people like trump because of the taxes and it has always been that way. also the religious right has always been supportive of republicans and evangelicals supporting republicans. i call them radical christians because i don't think they believe anything about christianity except that trump
has some kind of mandate from heaven, which i think is absurd because i need to find a new heaven then. that is my point of view. are,ted to ask you who you asking about taxes and i will tell you. i am just an ordinary person. i believe in having women in politics and black people in politics and i don't see that in the republican party. i don't see the black people, i don't see the women, i don't see anything over there that is typical of americans. it is typical of a tax related wealthy person who doesn't care about people on the border, they don't care about what i believe in, the people are supposed to care about babies and children and all of that stuff. that is my point of view. thank you. but interested in your book i don't believe it is what i see about republicans.
they have to get in and protect all of their property and taxes. guest: i think the caller is identifying accurately more the past than the present. we are moving away from the kind of political alignments that she talks about. when i was growing up in michigan, the people that identified with the auto company management vote republican people that identified with the united auto workers members and the factory workers, they voted democratic. that was a pattern that was common if not universal in america in the 1950's. i think that my experience when i go south of broad street down those beautiful historically preserved houses in charleston, one of america's growth -- one of america's fastest growing metro areas, i don't see a lot of trump signs.
certainly around the country when you look at the richest areas of the country, how does beverly hills vote? they vote heavily democratic. connecticut has been voting democratic, moving towards the democratic party where the first president bush's father and the second president bush's grandfather was lifted -- a 20 -- a rich man living in a community full of rich people and that has been moving toward the democratic party. if you go to the upper east side of manhattan, the rich areas lived.he late david koch you go to palm beach county, you go to the very richest parts of america. bel air where president reagan lived in retirement, going democratic. happened hereas
is americans as i have put it more often are split in politics along cultural, and economic lines. you seep splits on economic lines such as rich people voting against candidates. you see that less today than you do in the future. a better indicator is what is your position on abortion rights? do you believe that roe v. wade was correctly decided or do you think that abortion is the murder of a human being and that it extinguishes a human life and should be prohibited or at least limited in its availability? powerfulues are more in determining voter choices these days then issues of taxes. issuesn of taxes.
voters in michigan and california are voting for high taxes. they think that is good policy. it is their choice. south, we saw less of that, of high income people moving towards the democratic party but in the 2018 house election, metro houston, metro dallas-fort worth, troy atlanta and metro phoenix out west where the high income people had stayed republican unlike those in the northeast and industrial midwest and most of the west coast, where the high income people had stayed republican, they trended toward the demo credit candidates in 2018 and they clearly don't like donald and some of the policies he has supported on immigration and trade. host: a tweet from catherine that says i am interest in reading this book.
i suspect there is much of the concept of what defines the dems and republican parties is systemic and relevant from their inception and worthy of study. susan is joining us from california on the democrats line. caller: good morning and thank you. listening to the different [indiscernible] -- they arevoters listening to the media.
straight from it congress andns and c-span seems to be the only station that gives us a straight out true idea of what is going on. i think the voters are starting to change. [indiscernible] i wonder if you think voters are starting to talk to each other instead of listening to politicians. host: thanks for the call. guest: i think we are back to an c-span, towards partisan journalism. the historic is area of the internet states.
century, to the 19th the foundation of the democratic party, a democratic politician from new york city said to the victor go the spoils, the money from holding offices. a democratic newspaper got the ainting contract and that was source of considerable income and profit to them and they took it democratic party line and the republican newspapers took the same line. if you lived out in the midwest and you want to get the republican party line when the party was founded, you subscribed to the new york tribune. if you wanted to get the democratic line and why the civil war was a big mistake, you supported the new york herald. that was the partisan politics of the day. we had an era particularly with broadcasting, radio and television regular did by the government where the broadcasters accepted the idea
that they should provide an objective and nonpartisan point of view. i think increasingly as time went on, in the 60's and 70's and 80's, so-called objective point of view became less objective and thankfully your long team -- longtime colleague brian lam had this idea of presenting a genuinely nonpartisan bipartisan open to all, not endorsing candidates idea with c-span and i think your success was in part the fact that as the caller said, media has become more partisan. tople seek media that tends view the world from the same perspective that they do. that makes a certain amount of sense but it is always useful to get a reality principle of getting subsets of what people -- some sense of what people are saying on the undersigned. i would endorse one other idea
that lay behind with the caller said which is that it is easy to criticize ordinary people as not or not much ideas people -- not much knowledge about these things. if you listen to people, they not in an organized fashion, perceptions that are pretty accurate of the country or at least some perceptions and some knowledge and they have some rational basis for the way they vote and it has something to do with not only with their own perceived self interests but also to do with perceived best interest of the country as they see it. every vote counts and i think every vote is entitled to respect until proven otherwise. host: we thank you for those kind words about c-span.
if who wants to be a millionaire ever goes back on you need to be a lifeline because you know so much about politics. keep those comments coming in. let's go to bruce in pennsylvania. good morning, democrats line. caller: thanks for taking my call. i am a conservative democrat and i tend to see what my social changed over the years mostly the republicans have my social values now. get back over to syria if that is ok.
i am just wondering, like with france and england and germany, the united nations. we have to have the burden with our soldiers and everybody is blaming the president, what is going on over there. where are these other countries? they are supposed to be allies. do they have soldiers over there or are they taking the reins? all we hear is about the and the fact that he made a mistake but where are these other nations? what are they doing? host: thanks for the call. the editorial from the senate republican leader mitch mcconnell in the washington post calling the president's decision engraved mist -- a grave mistake. mistake is not an
ambiguous way to put it i guess. i note that the caller in some ways exemplifies one example of why donald trump won the 2016.on in he says yet edifies as a democrat but tends to take more conservative decisions on the noneconomic issues and seems to be a supporter of the president. himself as a conservative democrat, i've got chapters in this book about how the liberal republicans tended -- tended to disappear and how conservative democrats tended to disappear and the caller is one example of those. attempt tof i could
make a bipartisan critique perhaps, i think that the policies of both our current president and his predecessor in some ways resulted from impulsive statements that perhaps were not a good idea. i wrote a couple articles in the washington examiner on president that's declaration in 2012 the use of poison gas by the syrian government would be a redline. thesed some of that on reporting that peter baker did on this issue in the new york times, excellent reporting. that that was not a prepared statement, it was a statement made in the campaign , you are about to have the republican national convention and president obama
did not expect the syrians to use poison gas which they then did and gave us the choice, are we going to get in or get out and he basically decided not to get in but then eventually we had troops there and you have president trump announcing on a sunday night that we are yanking the thousand or troop -- thousand or so troops we have in this zone near the turkish border. that looks to be a little impulsive. i find the basis on which some people criticize both our recent democratic president and our current republican president on this issue. host: a couple things to share with you. the president talking about the wall, saying the wall is making a very big difference, even dems in the area are happy. this from kevin williamson in the new york post on the topic we were discussing this morning, he writes republicans are victims of their own success.
they succeeded with trump's nationalist agenda and 2016 and a very will succeed with that again in 2020. that becomes the playbook. they didn't win on balanced budgets, constitutionalism or george w. bush's foreign policy. the question going forward is whether they will build a wall in the top radio drum circle will be able to carry them forward without the novelty and celebrity of donald trump. a smaller question is whether the reagan conservatives can be kept in the public and coalition and whether there are enough of them to bother with. on the republican line from pennsylvania, our next caller. caller: a quick question. that with the president son-in-law being part of the israeli peace process and -- is tied in with the syrian move as well as how
has affectedhat -- politics, particularly with the -- president trump's policy on israel has been very supportive of the israeli government. he has moved the american embassy from tel aviv which is the largest metro area in israel to jerusalem which is the capital of israel. many experts on the middle east have said this would have a lot of negative consequences. i haven't noticed any lately and i think the idea that other arab countries, saudi arabia, the gulf states, each would react negatively to us if we supported israel in this regard, that doesn't seem to be the case. it may have been the case 25
years ago but it does not seem to be the case this year. that the caller referred to a large number of jewish people who are billionaires and so forth. i don't think his figures are accurate but there is no question that you have many jewish people who have been very successful economically in this country and have contributed very positively in my view, not just our economy but to our arts, our science establishment and so forth. i don't think that american support for israel, whether it has come from president trump or from other republicans or democrats is a reflection of money from jewish interests. it is a reflection of widespread american public opinion. you look at the public opinion in most of the united states and you see overwhelming majorities
in support of israel for a variety of reasons. israel is a democracy. it has the rule of law. it provides equal rights for all of its citizens and -- including those of air up -- of arab ancestry and background. that is the kind of country that the united states tends to like. it has also become one of the high tech innovation leaders in the world. 7 million people producing advancesc technologic that we in the united states can profit from in a trading world economy. host: the president talking politics overnight in another tweet after 10:30 p.m. east time -- east coast time.
on the democrats line, in baltimore. caller: good morning. isquestion this morning regarding the statement your guesstimate about -- your guest made about how the framers came to the conclusion that it would to allow everyone to practice their religions freely in this nation, but i've always , separation ofse church and state, the call for the separation of church and , the call for the separation of church and state. i would like to know exactly where that comes from. guest: separation of church and state, i think it is a fair
conclusion from history that the idea of separation of church and state comes from a letter thomas jefferson wrote to a baptist congregation in connecticut where he said there should be a wall of separation between church and state. that was jefferson's first -- that was jefferson's personal opinion. stronglysts had been and still are strongly against the idea of entanglement of religion with the state, the government. that,ad been strongly of so perhaps jefferson was catering to a constituency, saying that he had the same view. the first amendment is not exactly a separation of church and state. the law says, the first amendment says congress shall make no law prohibiting freedom of religion and the free
exercise thereof. congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion. what that means i think is there is not going to be any federal established religion. a religion that the state supports and your tax money finances. most of the colonies did have established religions. congregational in connecticut and massachusetts, and so forth. they had state government support. the massachusetts and connecticut establishments continued until 1818 and 1832. they were not considered at that time to be a violation of the first amendment. they were voted out by the state legislature and the governors of those states just as virginia voted to get rid of its established church in the
1780's. the advocacy of thomas jefferson and james madison who was strongly against the established religion in virginia, that was a big change from the european heritage that most of the colonists had. you had established church in england, scotland, ireland. you still have the established church in england and scotland. in have established churches most of the countries in europe. countries, many of the german states were lutheran. the king of france was his most catholic majesty. spain did not recognize anything but the catholic church. change that the founders made, not something made,an -- the founders
something that they considered very seriously and it set a new tone. washington goes to newport, rhode island and he is greeted by the synagogue there, he makes a special point of visiting the synagogue, saying are not jewish people given tolerance as an exercise but simply as other equal whereduals in a republic freedom of religion applies to all. host: we have about a minute left. how do you explain the republican disdain for social programs, health care, decayed and red states like west virginia consistently voting against their ability to survive? guest: people decide what their own interest is and if they think abortion rights or a right to keep and bear arms is more
important than putting more money into medical care plans, that is their right. not athat think that is good decision can make their arguments. you see a lot of modest income people voting against more federal spending, a lot of high income people voting for more federal spending and higher taxes. those are the decisions people make. host: the book is called how america's political parties change and how they don't. the cover includes the american flag and a sand castle. guest: hourglass. change as hemingway said about bankruptcy, gradually and then suddenly. donald trump is the sudden. host: ist: next, frank bowman joining us. he is out with a new book on
impeachment. we will discuss the history of the impeachment process. you are watching and listening to c-span's washington journal. we will be back in a moment. ♪ >> thinking about participating in c-span's 2020 competition but you have never made a documentary film before? no problem. we have resources on our website to help you get started. check out our download pages for producing information and video links to footage in the c-span library. students and teachers can also find resources. my advice to anyone who wants youompete is find a topic
are passionate about and pursue it. >> we are asking middle school and high school students to create a documentary about an issue you would like presidential candidates to address during the 2020 campaign. $100,000 inaward total cash prizes, including a $5,000 grand prize. >> make the best video you can possibly produce. >> visit the website for more information today. tonight on q&a, american university distinguished professor of history alan kraut looks back at policies on managing immigration. >> i would argue the current wave of nativism, of anti-immigrant sentiment is not different from what we have seen in the past. to beit seems to us peppered with acts of violence and -- there have been other
acts of violence, anti-immigrant riots in the period before the civil war. the-immigrant riots in 1880's. there have been a lot of moments in american history when the anti-inter--- anti-immigrant sentiment has been translated into true ugliness. >> watch tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q&a. >> washington journal continues. host: we would like to welcome frank bowman and the book is called "high crimes and misdemeanors: a history of impeachment for the age of trump". good sunday morning, thank you for being with us. guest: thank you for having me. host: let's do it with the washington post on this sunday, a picture of alexander hamilton and the piece says alexander hamilton is who trump had in mind when he pushed for impeachment powers for congress. guest: i think that is a fair statement. host: why?
guest: the most important is aion for impeachment check by legislature against aecutive overreach and concern by the framers that we would have a president who would authority andhis be so essentially inappropriate at the job that even the remedy of election would not be sufficient. we need to remove him sometime between the four years between elections. host: the debate in the 1860's with andrew johnson and 1974 with richard nixon and in the 1990's with bill clinton kids to
-- conviction of treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors. it is still vague today, isn't it? guest: i wouldn't call it vague. treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. only crimethe defined in the constitution, essentially defined as giving aid and comfort to an enemy in the time of war. that is not what we are talking about. is easily defined. it was well known then and now. the phrase you are most concerned about is high crimes and misdemeanors but that was a phrase taken from 400 years of practice in the english parliament. when it was adopted by the framers they understood it as a
term of art and how the british used it for the previous 400 years. we can get a pretty good idea, at least of what the framers were thinking about, or they adopted the phrase. iredell was one of the founders. host: i mentioned that because you say in the book that he and hamilton were careful about the definitions. they were aligning themselves with george mason and sing the focus of the impeachment mechanism for presidents is on offenses against the community or policies of the society that violate public trust, those reach beyond near violations of the criminal code to a dangerous assault on political order. guest: one of the things people often think of when they hear the phrase high crimes and misdemeanors, it sounds like it is referring to crimes in the ordinary sense.
because of that, it tends to confuse people. it tends to mislead us and draw us into discussions about whether a president's behavior falls into the narrow parameters of some particular statutory crime during the time we are having an impeachment controversy. that is not what it is about. casesfundamentally about for the executive represents a danger to the constitutional republic has held onto for many years. that that kind of thing the framers were most concerned about. host: at cnn.com, you wrote if the president's ukraine call is not impeachable, nothing is. define your argument. going one of the things, back to the time the british invented it peach meant in 1376,
one of the things that is deemed to be impeachable is abuse of power. power, weout abuse of are referring to a president's use of authority that he is been legitimately given under the constitution or by statute. in the particular case of ukraine, what we have is a president who is employing his commander-in-chief power, broadly speaking his power over the military, distribution of military assets, and his power given to him by the constitution as essentially the chief diplomat of the united states. in the case of ukraine, we have the president employing both of those powers and saying to the president of a country who is not by any means and equal in power or stature in the world, currentlytry which is
at risk of losing both its territorial integrity and independence to russia because russia has already taken a piece of ukraine's territory and is supporting an ongoing war against the ukrainian state in the eastern part of the country. independence depends on support from the west, broadly speaking, and particularly from the united states. call that wen the have a rough transcript of, supported by circumstantial evidence about other things the administration was doing, what we have is a president saying to a vulnerable country we do a lot of things for you, meaning we give you military support, economic support, a big package of military aid pending. but, says the president in that
call, it is not reciprocal, meaning, we need something back -- i need something in return before this continued aid will be provided to you. very shortly later, he provides what that reciprocity is supposed to be. host: the president is saying what he was trying to do was root out corruption, specifically with the former vice president and his son. is that not legitimate? guest: no. the idea mr. trump was probably concerned about corruption in ukraine was not really a sustainable notion. what we see with respect to mr. trump and the actions of his subordinates is the only kind of corruption he seems to be conveniently interested in our unsupported allegations about a fellow who might be his principal appointed in an upcoming election. the noticed this is a broad-based interest in corruption is ludicrous,
actually. a graduate bowman is of harvard and teaches at georgetown university here in washington, d.c. he has a book on impeachment. you can send us a text message to (202) 748-8003. we want to share with you what congressman steve scalise said on the house for in regard to impeachment of the president. hearings going on behind closed doors, many of my colleagues try to attend some of those hearings and have been turned away if they are not on the committees of jurisdiction. colleagues that have tried to read things like testimony and have been turned away, denied the ability to do that. there is a real concern that there is an attempt to impeach a president of united states, remove a president that was duly elected, using a process of secrecy behind closed doors, or
one person is setting the rules, breaking the tradition we have always had with the only three other times in our country's history where impeachment inquiry began in the house. and all of those cases, they laid out rules of fairness, or people were able to ask questions on both sides. people were able to call witnesses on both sides. even the president would be able to have an opportunity to have someone there to also question people. that is always been the case. it is not the case here. host: that from congressman steve scalise, republican from louisiana. talking about the process being emplaced by house democrats. guest: as a friend of mine at georgetown said the other day, many -- when you're talking about process you are probably losing. what you see from the president's defenders is
consistently discussions about process. let's talk about the process. the idea that the house procedure that is being under gone now is in any way in violation of due process, which is a phrase thrown around, or remarkably different from what has gone on in the past, is not supportable. for example, he said in three impeachment there has been with witnesseses being called and so forth. let's start with andrew johnson. congress try to impeach andrew johnson several times, but the second time, the time that produced his impeachment went something like this -- the principal ground was a violation. fired his secretary. he was one of the people covered by the tenure of office act,
which says a president can't fire certain people without the permission of congress. 21nson fired him on february of 1868. the house of representatives came back with a decision to impeach president johnson on february 24, three days later. they came back with a resolution to impeach him not even having, in fact, produced articles of impeachment, something good did not do not due for another two weeks. host: that was an election year. there ise notion that a tradition of long processes is of course not true. there was not a long process and the house of representatives involving mr. clinton. host: when the republicans had control. ken starr'star --
people drive up printed reports, he produced 400 pages of mr. essentiallysdeeds, dumped this van load of reports on the house of representatives. that was essentially the basis on which mr. clinton was impeached. it was not based on any protected period of hearings. the only thing that has to be said here is mr. trump is probably looking at he has misrepresented, that people who support him have no opportunity to participate. that is not true. first of all, in all impeachment proceedings, the recent ones, public hearings, when they have occurred, have been preceded by private witness interviews, which is entirely appropriate.
essentially what is going on in the house right now, we have private interviews of witnesses before some later public proceeding. that is not only lots of precedent for, but it is incredibly important. if your viewers think back to some of the hearings that have republicander both and democrat control of the house, where the proceedings devolved into circuses of congressman grandstanding rather than questioning the witnesses, you can see why it is important that the fact gathering portion of this process occurs without tv cameras. hearings, itthose is not true mr. trump is not represented. the republican members of the committee can and are questioning witnesses. republican members of the staffs
of these committees can and are questioning these witnesses. there is a process going on that is not dissimilar to many things that have been done in our history that are providing mr. trump due process. host: the book is called "high crimes and misdemeanors: a history of impeachment for the age of trump", our guest is frank bowman. in addition to his work at georgetown university, he is a professor of law at the university of missouri school of law. let's get your phone calls. texas, republican line, thank you for waiting. good morning. because iam calling aret think the democrats being fair to the president of the united states. host: why so? caller: they are thinking about impeachment and everything. why don't they impeach the congress? they have done more bad things.
the democrats trying to overthrow our government. host: the president tweeting that senator mitt romney should be impeached. is that even possible? guest: interesting question. in the beginning, when the constitution was written, i think it is pretty clear that the great many of the founders thought a senator could be impeached. there are a lot of indications of that. the first time that was tried, senator william blunt was impeached. consensus is he was acquitted, at least in part, maybe exclusively, because the senate concluded a senator is not a civil officer. a class of people subject to impeachment under the constitution. host: north carolina, republican line, good morning. caller: good morning.
i am actually a duke law student , would you come to our school and have a talk? this topic is electric and you can feel it in the school, in and the the excitement discourse of not understanding what the process really entails. is the question you are getting from your peers? it is really about the process. also, what i think has been the isead and the common theme -- when you have an administration that is doing continuous blocking of potential witnesses, where they are essentially stopping every step of the way those people coming forward in offering their seeingny, is that we are
barriers set up. a lot of the focus has been on what compels individuals to come forward from the law and what statute in the law will provide a mechanism, compelling them to come forward, other than the subpoena process? secondly, one question about witnesses, windows the supreme court become involved? courtn does the supreme become involved? guest: if that is an invitation, have somebody call me and i will come down. he raises a couple of important questions. what i'm hearing is concern about the efforts by the administration and mr. trump in particular to block the
inquiries by the house into potentially impeachable matters. here,is a broader concern which might not be evident to some people who are only casual observers of what has been going on here in washington. not just with respect to specific inquiries regarding impeachment but across-the-board, but you have seen from this administration the last couple of years is an increasing unwillingness to respond to any congressional inquiries on pretty much any topic. that of itself is in my view one of the most serious threats that mr. trump is proposing to our constitutional government. to our constitutional government. you can't legislate if you are congress if you can find facts about what the executive branch is doing. mr. trump seems to be determined across-the-board to prevent congress from learning the
things it needs to know in order to legislate. let's turn specifically to impeachment. refusalan illegitimate to respond to inquiries from congress investigating impeachment can be ended of itself and impeachable defense. that was the third article of impeachment returned against the house judiciary committee against richard nixon. in the meantime, if we don't impeach him for refusing to respond, what else can be done? is there any means of compelling witnesses to appear? there are about three. one possibility is if they are subpoenaed and don't show up, congress can seek to have them found in criminal contempt. to do that, they have to refer the case to the department of justice and doj has exclusive control over that. this justice department has shown no particular disposition
to do that on behalf of congress. the other possibility is to sue the administration or particular witnesses in court -- in civil court to enforce the subpoenas. the difficulty with that is it takes time. you have to go to a trial court, you will probably have to go to an appellate court and certainly mr. trump has indicated he will resist these lawsuits all the way up to the supreme court. part of the answer to your question, when does the supreme court get involved? with respect to the enforcement of congressional subpoenas, that is when the supreme court would get involved, at the appellate and of any effort to enforce subpoenas. the chief justice, if there is a trial, serves as the judge. guest: the constitution says and impeachment of the president, the chief justice is to be the presiding officer. to a large extent, the chief
justice does not do very much in the proceedings. he convenes and makes provisional rulings, but in the end, the senate itself decides what the ruling will be and what evidence will be permitted. if there is an objection to the evidence, a chief justice might make a preliminary ruling but if the other side doesn't like it they printed the vote of the full senate. is telling bannon the new york post he expects the house to convene and impeachment vote in the next six weeks. if that were to happen, when could we see a trial in the senate? questionsre are some about whether or not the senate is obliged to have a trial at all, that has been discussed a lot in the media. i think the answer is the constitution certainly implies an obligation on the part of the senate to hold a trial. it is remarkably terse on this.
it says the senate shall have the sole power to try cases of impeachment but it does not say they have to take up impeachment if it comes over from the house. i think the implication is strong that they should and it turns out the senate rules are clear on that point. moreover, majority leader mcconnell has said he is obliged to do it. but when it would occur and what form it would take is very much open to question. host: the book is called "high crimes and misdemeanors" and our guest is frank bowman who also teaches at the university of missouri. and those our viewers listening on c-span radio. u.s. troops leaving syria for western iraq, that from mark esper, who is in the region. i mention that because of a tweet moments ago from the president, secretary of defense,
the cease-fire is holding up nicely. that are minor skirmishes have ended quickly. usa soldiers are not in combat in cease-fire zones. we have secured the oil. bring the soldiers home! that is the president. is marknse secretary esper. charles, democrat line, good morning. caller: good morning. wondering, how can we ask a foreign country to investigate -- is ukraine good at it? i don't understand how the president can even ask them to do this. host: thank you, charles. ukraine, likese any country, can investigate whatever they want to investigate.
whether or not they are particularly competent i could not say. the issue with respect to mr. trump is what he has done to request -- and really to extort -- at least a supposedly investigate, limited to a fellow who is apt to be -- or is likely to be -- one of his opponents in the upcoming election. that is the illegitimate part. it is not whether ukraine is good or bad at investigating anything, it is whether any president should be seeking a foreign country focused on investigating his potential political opponents. host: alabama on our line for independents, good morning. caller: good morning. i want to thank you for the two guests you had this morning. very informative. are they democrats or republicans or independents?
it is interesting to hear what they had to say. independent since john anderson's days and it disappointed me that many of the people who are asking the question why are they doing the investigation and why all of this needs to happen, we need the impeachment process to follow through. we needed to go on. this is about a line of integrity and what i listen to the people talk on this television station, on c-span, i often hear the people who are democrats and republicans are the most articulate and the people who understand the issues far better than any republican. i am just disappointed in the republican party, how superficial it has been. if the shoe were on the other foot, they would not hesitate to
do everything they could to disrupt this process in order to make a fall for the democrats and independents. getie sanders, i wanted to the best people. obama as even michelle the vice president and nancy pelosi mr. president would be a good ticket for us to run on. bernie sanders, you could put a coalition together that is unquestionable for nation. thank you. host: thank you for watching washington journal on a sunday morning. we will get a response. guest: one thing that comes up listening to the caller's remark, impeachments are necessarily going to be driven partisanxtent by concerns. how the exam hamilton recognized
this when he was writing federalist papers. one thing he said was inevitably, impeachment, particularly with the president, is going to excite partisan passions to such an extent that there is always some risk that partisanship will over bear, will exceed people's capacity to decide facts. host: to that point, we have been getting a lot of tweets on the topic. one comment said what will tricky mitch do? block all of the evidence or will mitch mcconnell refuse impeachment hearings because as he said he only does what trump approves of. extent takeso some us back to the question of what the senate trial would look like. understand that in the senate, and i think there will be a trial or sometime, what the rules will be, who knows.
the majority of the senate will have a good deal to say about that. senate, thet in the presentation of the evidence, or at least the case for impeachment, assuming there is an impeachment vote, we don't know yet. the case is presented by people called managers, that is to say they are members of the house of representatives who are appointed to go to the senate and present the case based on the articles of impeachment voted on by the house. the case for the prosecution will be presented by democrats, almost certainly. they will have some opportunity to articulate whatever case they have to make. if larger point is impeachment is to work as it was intended, then people on both sides of the aisle have to try as best they can to overcome
their partisan inclinations. a really good example of that occurring is the nixon impeachment. certainly, the republicans in those days were not all happy the president of their party, richard nixon, was being investigated toward being impeached. on the senate side and the senate watergate committee and on the house judiciary committee, by and large, republicans at that time behaved honorably and in the best traditions of elected democracy. they believed, although they were unhappy about the process, they believed that facts matter. they participated actively in the gathering of facts and when the facts became clear, although they try to articulate their best position they could for the president of their party, when madeacts came out, they the best judgment they could make as americans, rather than
as republicans. in the house judiciary committee, six of the republican members of voted for articles of impeachment against richard nixon and once the so-called smoking gun tape came out, all of them said afterwards if we had known about that, we would have voted to impeach. moreover, nixon left without a full vote of impeachment in the house because the delegation of republican legislators went to the house and said mr. president, the case against you is irrefutable, you don't have the votes, it is time for you to go. famously, barry goldwater is asked by president nixon whether there were the votes on a potential article and he said yes, mr. president, there are and frankly i would probably vote for it myself. i do want to suggest the republicans and the nixon period were eager to impeach nixon are
they were always rigorously neutral, they were not. but they behaved as we would expect american-statesman to behave. facts,re interested in they were prepared to make hard judgments even when against their own political party. help thatat least congress in present day might take a lesson for those guys. impeachmentory of in the age of trump, mark bowman -- frank bowman is joining us. west virginia, good morning, ed. caller: good morning. it sounds to me as though the democrats are investigating the president for impeachment. can even get their appeal. host: let me stop you.
--t republicans guest: despite what you are hearing from some of the president's defenders, what are going on in the closed are hearings are that all of the members of the committee doing the investigation are present, if they want to be, in the hearing room with the witnesses. democratic representatives, republican representatives, and in addition to the representatives, congressman, congresswomen, and our staff members, lawyers, republicans and democrats. they are in the hearing room together, they get to all the evidence and ask questions. the story that republicans are being excluded is just untrue. you have had some republican congressman doing some grandstanding. guys who are not members of the
committees holding the hearings and trying to get into the hearings. not any congressman or congresswoman can participate in the hearings of a committee on which they are not a member. that is not the way it works. host: let's follow up with you in west virginia. caller: the head of the supreme court is a judge in the senate. i am 84 years old, but he is a judge in the senate. the chief justice, john roberts as the presiding officer. guest: he would be the presiding officer if there is a senate trial but his powers are limited. host: democrats line from new jersey. good morning with frank bowman. caller: good morning.
thank you for c-span. i love washington journal. i think it is the most fair program on the air. host: thank you. caller: my question is, i don't know if i can articulate well, but what, if any, leverage to the senate democrats have in making rules for what the senate trial would look like? i know the makeup of senate right now is roughly 53 republicans, they don't have enough votes to withstand a filibuster, for example. does that come into play? to the senate democrats have any leverage or is it all up to mitch mcconnell? senateo democrats in the have a responsibility or jurisdiction? senators in a trial are principally there to be the jury, although, again, there is
a weird business where the jury gets to vote on questions of the rules and on evidence and so forth. the senate actually has an existing set of rules for impeachment proceedings. they are limited but they exist. amending them is fairly difficult. on the other hand, there is a good deal of flexibility in terms of what the rules would be senate, inity of the certain circumstances, could change or alter the rules. one possibility that has been suggested is one could move to veryss the impeachment soon after the proceedings began. that was attempted in the clinton impeachment but the vote was not to allow the dismissal. host: for that to happen, what
needs to happen? if the senate votes to dismiss. guest: it could, if they voted to dismiss it would be over and everyone would go home. at a minimum, there would have to be a majority of the senators to vote to dismiss it. i rather doubt that the matter would be dealt with like that. it would look so obviously partisan and would present, frankly, difficulty republicans who are up for reelection in the next cycle and who need, at the least, to be seen in their states to be treating this matter seriously. host: that requires a simple majority, correct? guest: yes. host: texas, good morning. caller: good morning. this is such an interesting subject.
questions that have seen answered on various channels and i want to get a straight answer on this. rules,rstanding is the there are no rules in the constitution for what the congress right now is undertaking. that the majority leader of the congress basically sets the rules. understand i also that in the nixon impeachment, there was a special counsel that gathered evidence and that rule is no longer applicable. host: i wonder if you can explain the british precedent in the impeachment process. guest: with respect to the rules?
she is right that the constitution contains no rules about how the house and the senate should conduct their impeachment business. all the constitution says is house shall have the sole power of impeachment and the senate shall have the sole power of trying impeachments. the senate requires a two thirds majority to convict. think the caller might be referring to is there has been a debate recently about whether or not what is going on in the house of representatives is a real impeachment if they don't have a vote of the entire house to authorize and impeachment inquiry. , it is ar to that is real impeachment inquiry, whether or not you have the vote of the entire house or not.
in past presidential impeachments, the house, as a body, has authorized an official inquiry. that andno need for there could not be. reasons whye of the in past impeachments the house chose to vote out an authorization was on those past occasions, there was not any necessary authorization given to particular committees to issue subpoenas. forefore, there was a need the whole house to vote, not only that there be inquiry, but the inquiring committee would have subpoena power. that is not true right now because there is a set of rules in the house of representatives that has been in existence for a while. togives subpoena power committee chairs to inquire
about whatever they want to inquire about. rightis no constitutional that there be a whole house vote to commence and impeachment inquiry. it was an impeachment inquiry before nancy pelosi stood up and said now we are conducting one, it is an impeachment inquiry now because the constitution gives the house the power to impeach and that necessarily means it gives the house of the power to inquire into the facts that would be necessary to impeach. host: the books -- the book "high crimes and misdemeanors" by our guest frank bowman. there is a piece this morning in the outlook section of the washington post, trump is what hamilton had in mind when he pushed for impeachment powers. he wanted a strong president and a way to get rid of a demagogue,
as well. line, you aredent on the air with frank bowman. good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i wanted to speak to the issue of fairness that has been raised by some republicans. you had on your program ken starr sitting in the same share this gentleman is sitting at and ken starr was proud to say he investigated bill clinton for five years. their investigation was the equivalent of the mueller investigation and it lasted for five years and came back with 12 indictments after five years. also, the investigation was led by republicans, which of course was the opposite party of bill clinton. now we have the mueller report, which lasted less than two years and was republicans
investigating a republican president, handed it over to a republican attorney general, who without letting anyone see the whole thing, made the conclusion , which turns out to be false, that there was no obstruction of justice. i wanted to speak to the fairness thing. in the mueller report, it came back with over 20 indictments in less than two years investigation, yet the whole time republicans were screaming this thing lasted too long, this is been going on too long. come backad ken starr in 1994 after five years with only 12 indictments and it was about a land deal in arkansas. upust wanted to bring that and see what your guest would say about the fairness thing that these republicans are screaming about now. and thank you for taking my call. host: thank you from texas.
guest: this allows us to address this question but the previous role of asked about the special prosecutors, special counsel in investigating presidential impeachments. there was no such thing back in the time of andrew johnson in 1868 but in the clinton and nixon impeachments, the bulk of the evidence that was produced in an effort to impeach those presidents was produced by prosecutors at the department of justice. they were special prosecutors, that was the title for archibald counsel independent the case of ken starr. he was called independent counsel because of the saturday night massacre led to the post-watergate enactment of
special counsel statute that created this independent office that was really quite independent from the justice department. it allowed ken starr to investigate president clinton for a very long time. accesses lead to a lapse in the independent counsel statute. case, we were back to the special prosecutor from the justice department .odel, and that was bob mueller what is interesting about the current situation and is distinct from nixon and clinton is the thing that seems to be likely to get mr. trump impeached is something that has not been investigated by the justice department, which is the ukraine matter. this situation arose after mr. mueller packed up and went home.
whatever facts will be gathered and put before the congress on the country are facts that congress itself is going to have to extract. host: which leads to a text message question from tennessee. you can send text messages to (202) 748-8003. he said do you want to know what happened in ukraine and who do you trust to investigate? guest: do i want to know what happened in ukraine? i'm not exactly sure what that means. host: i think he means in regard to the president and what president trump did or did not say to the ukrainian leader. have somehink we advantages in the present case and what mr. trump's white house has released at least a partial transcript of what was said. there doesn't seem to be any effort from the white house to
deny the conversation with moreover,president, we seem to be getting additional information corroborating both the essence of the call and the fact that there were efforts extortade to essentially investigative activity out of the ukrainians. it is coming forward from government officials who are essentially defying directions from the white house not to testify. of civicble displays virtue, public courage by the folks coming forward. so long as the trump administration maintains its posture of stonewalling requests for documents and so long as some of trump's officials refused to testify, we will probably not be able to get the full picture of what exactly went on with respect to that interaction. i think we will be able to get democrats in the
an advantageous position if they want to impeach mr. trump. they are getting sufficient information to conclude there was an abuse of power. toppe other hand, mr. persists in trying to block in trumptimate ways -- mr. persists in trying to block in illegitimate ways. host: not that it is happening but it is not, but hypothetically, can you impeach both a sitting president and a vice president? guest: sure. they are mentioned as impeachable officers. the provision that talks about this says the president, vice president and civil officers can be impeached. host: this is more of an academic lesson. hypothetically, if vice president pence were linked to
this, could that be in impeachable offense? guest: i think so. in the same sense that the effort to extort some sort of investigation out of the ukrainians is impeachable to the were aware mr. pence of the fact it was being done to benefit the private political interests of the president, potentially yes. one other point that there's emphasis, what is clear from what we know so far about the interaction between mr. trump seemkraine is he doesn't to have wanted an investigation ,er se, but what he wanted was at least there is an indication, what he wanted was there to be an announcement there would be an investigation. a statement from ukraine that
there would be an investigation into mr. biden and his son. and the conspiracy theory that hillary clinton's email server was being hidden in ukraine. to me that is revealing. he did not want information. what he wanted was the ability to go out in public and say, you see, the ukrainians are looking into joe biden and hillary clinton's email server. that must mean there is something bad. that, i think, is terribly telling. we know there were negotiations back and forth between lower ranking u.s. officials and the ukrainians about a deliverable -- there was going to be a precondition for the release of eight, deliverable was the announcement, not the investigation. that to me is terribly revealing. host: a former trump campaign
manager tweeted the media is ignoring the bidens ukraine dealings to protect the x vice president. democrat line from springfield, massachusetts. good morning. caller: thank you for accepting my call. i am enjoying the comments and the observation made by your guest this morning. i will read that book. the gentleman who called from , and talkedy before investigation being organized by the republican party and under the control the republican party, i concur with. that was my reason for calling. of the investigation of trump and the association and connection with russia that
happened before the first of 2019 happened under the republican party. republicans had control of the house and the senate and the executive branch of government. any appointments made by special investigator or special prosecutor was made by republicans. it happened under the previous administration, under obama's administration, he cap some republicans in his cabinet positions. some -- he kept some republicans in his cabinet positions. the other thing is, i am concerned that the republicans accused the democrats of the expenses of the investigation. with decisions
made by republicans. the second part of the investigation that we want to discuss now is having to deal with ukraine, the whistleblower. that came out of the white house under the control of the president of the united states, which is donald trump. the democrats probably don't have anything to do with what happens in the white house. those people who are blaming democrats for the investigation, need to go back to the source of for the investigation is coming from and who has the power. thank you so much for accepting my call. host: thank you for the call. he put a lot on the table. impeachmentour book is fundamentally a political incess, a contest played out the u.s. congress in a contest
in which the boundaries of the playing field are influenced by the belief about the constitution. please explain. guest: there is a tendency to think impeachment is only about partisan politics. partisan politics certainly influences the result of any impeachment. it can't be any other way and hamilton understood that. it is also important for us to realize what it is really about. what it is really about is how we define our constitutional order. how we understand the place of the president in relationship with congress and the supreme court and the entire set of norms and values that have sustained this country over the last 230 years. only in the context can we
understand whether or not we should impeach a particular president. after a long period of difficult thought, i came to the conclusion several weeks ago, particularly with this ukraine business, as reluctant as i was to say so, i think we have come to the point where mr. trump represents a genuine threat to the constitutional order, a genuine threat to american values. to me, that is not a partisan conclusion. it is based on examining his behavior and looking at it in the long flow of american -- and british and frankly history. wooden executive so far overreaches himself that he represents a threat to the constitutional order, that is when impeachment is appropriate. if that happens in the
house, the response from the senate will be what? guest: are you asking me to predict votes? i don't know anymore more than anyone else. i suspect the allegations against mr. trump if they continue to be developed, at least some republicans will strongly consider voting to impeaching him. host: professor and author frank bowman, the book is called "high crimes and misdemeanors: a history of impeachment for the age of trump". we thank you for being with us. guest: so glad to be here. host: we are back tomorrow morning with c-span's washington journal at 7:00 eastern time, 4:00 pacific time. the house and senate are both back in session. we will talk about what is happening with congress this week.
we will be joined by someone from the president's advisory committee. thank you for joining us on this sunday. of newsmakers is coming up next. ♪ [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] >> here is a look at some of what is ahead today on c-span. newsmakers is life this morning. the executive, director director for republicans and the rule of law will talk about her group's efforts to get more republican candidates to speak out against president trump. after that, the house foreign affairs subcommittee reviews a report from the syria study
group in the wake of the president's decision to withdraw u.s. troops from northern syria. a senate foreign relations committee on iran's nuclear capabilities and the potential impact of withdrawing u.s. troops from syria. new c-span survey on voting and elections found 60% of americans want to amend the u.s. constitution and elect the president by popular vote, rather than the electoral college. 38% want to keep the current system. only one third of republicans support the change, 84% of democrats and two thirds of independents favor the popular foot for president. americans don't want to change the way most votes are counted in states and localities where the person with the most votes wins, even if they don't receive a majority. the winner take all system has the support of 61% of americans.
only 37% want to change to a ranked choice system, like the one introduced in maine where a second choice candidate is taken into account if no candidate gets a majority of the votes. support for ranked choice is strongest among independents, but still under half among that group. you can read the full results on these issues and others, such as americans' views on voting discrimination and voter fraud, at c-span.org. our c-span campaign 2020 bus team is traveling across the country, visiting key battleground states in the 2020 presidential race, asking voters what issues they want presidential candidates to address during the campaign. >> an issue to me that is by far the most important, the most paramount in the 2020 election, is the climate crisis, and i'm electricitying the climate crisis or climate emergency so as to express the you are general sift matter. according to that famous
report, we have only 11 years, until 2030, to deal with this issue, and we need to understand that 11 years is not a ton of time in historical or political context at all. and so this is absolutely an emergency. we have to be dealing with this right now, today. >> what i really want presidential candidates to be talking about is the second amendment as to why they want -- look, agree with the whole gun control thing, but if it's stuff that's being bought on the black market, then why do they want to try to take our guns astpwhay why do they want to take away from the civilians of this country and why do they want to disarm us? >> i would like the candidates to address international union across the borders, and also where they stand on freeing the former
president of brazil. >> education. ur kids are being left behind. in education, government tells you that you have to do this and do that, but no funding available. and then the taxpayers have to come up with it. >> voices from the campaign trail, part of c-span's attleground states tour. host: joining us on "newsmakers" is sarah longwell, executive director of republicans for the rule of law, which is what? sarah: well, we're a group of republicans that started in late 2017, really around trying to protect the mueller investigation from political interference, but obviously we have found that there is a need for republicans to stand up for the rule of law on a lot of fronts, whether it is trump's abuse of power, his self-enrichment, but essentially we're just a group of republicans who want to
stand up for traditional republican values. we were always the rule of law party, and we see that not being the case as much anymore, and wee very concerned about it. host: joining us here with questioning in washington, simone, senior politics reporter with "roll call," and josh, who is national journals ace political editor. thanks for joining in. i do want to begin with news this sunday, the tweet bit president late yesterday regarding his property in miami, the doral, his decision to scrub plans to host the g-7 in miami. he wrote the following -- i thought i was doing something very good for our country by using trump national doral in miami for hosting the g-7 leaders. it is big, grand, on hundreds of acres, next to miami international airport, has tremendous ballrooms, meeting rooms, and each delegation would essentially have its own 50 to 750-unit building, which is set up better than any of the alternative. i announce