tv Washington Journal 01242020 CSPAN January 24, 2020 7:00am-10:01am EST
with the hill senior staff writer scott wong. join the conversation all morning with your phone calls, emails, facebook comments and tweets. calls, emails, facebook comments, and tweets. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: this is the "washington 24.nal" for january as impeachment managers will make their case. at 1:00watch starting this afternoon eastern standard time and follow at c-span.org and you can download and listen on the radio app. yesterday house managers focused on the abuse of power and you can make your comments on the information presented by calling us. democrats, 202-748-8001. republicans, 202-748-8001. and independents, 202-748-8002.
att us this morning 202-748-8003. you can post on twitter @cspanwj and our facebook page, facebook.com/cspan. three hours today we will take your calls on this topic and so as you are making the calls and getting ready to talk to us and give us your thoughts on yesterday's proceedings, we will get a rundown of what happened from john mcardle. host 2: want to start by looking ahead at the schedule today on capitol hill. the trial gets underway at 1:00 p.m. eastern time this morning. house managers today have 24 they have of the areining 24 hours -- they expected to use all of it. after the house managers finish
their presentation according to the rules agreed to at the beginning of the trial, the president's lawyers will have 24 hours to make their case. lenny of speculation about how much time they will use. not expected to use all 24 hours. senators will be able to ask their questions of impeachment managers and the president's lawyers. 16 hours of questions submitted through the chief justice will take place early next week. after that comes the key moment in the trial where there will be a decision about whether to subpoena more witnesses or more documents. a couple of articles on that front as that is being closely watched, one from the hill newspaper noting senate republicans feel confident they have the votes to block block --' attempt to
get a subpoenas. they would need 51 to subpoena additional witnesses and documents. only two republicans have said they will likely vote to subpoena witnesses, soon -- susan collins of maine and mitt romney. lisa murkowski being watched as well as somebody who could be a swing vote and politico putting a lot of attention on another possible swing vote, lamar alexander of tennessee. the 79-year-old senator, calling him a wildcard. senior senate republicans expect k witness see testimony to fail. that is what is happening on capitol hill today at 1:00 although i should note there is no pretrial session in the senate today before a
legislative session, but are supposed to meet in an all senator briefing at 10:30 a.m. a briefing on the coronavirus with officials from the cdc, nih, the state department, and others. that happening at 10:30 before the 1:00 p.m. start on the work of the impeachment trial. at the other end of pennsylvania benue, president trump will delivering his remarks to the 47th annual march for life today and we are covering that at noon. you can watch that on c-span, c-span.org, listen on the free radio app. a couple articles on that front, this from the news out of used -- utah noting plenty of the attendees of the march for life have shown up this week since they are in town at the impeachment trial of president trump have been in the
galleries. impeachment trial hearings were supposed to be riveting tv, they haven't delivered, so why are hundreds waiting in line to watch live? the news tracking some of those folks who have been watching live. one other story from the washington post, a column today life, themarch for significance of president trump being the first president to address the march for life live saying it is hard to overstate how important this development is. no president ever attended the march for life. all addressed the marchers remotely. the message to pro-lifers then was they were the black sheep of the republican coalition, but not anymore. if you want to read the column in the washington post. the president is expected to address the united states conference of mayors, their winter meeting. he will have the mayors in the east room of the white house at
4:15. president trump at the march for life or noon is when our c-span, starts on c-span.org, and the radio app and you can head over to c-span 2 at 1:00 p.m. for continuing coverage, gavel-to-gavel, of the impeachment trial. host: house impeachment managers focused on the topic of abuse of .ower yesterday it was adam schiff making the final case on that front. [video clip] >> can any of us have the confidence donald trump will put his personal interests ahead of the national interest? is there really any evidence in givepresidency that should us the ironclad confidence he would do so? you know you can't count on him to do that, that is the sad truth, you know you cannot count on him to do that.
the american people deserve a tosident they can count on put their interests first, to put their interest first. -- vindmand been , right -- said, "here matters." let me tell you some thing, if , if rightn't matter , it doesn'ter matter how good the constitution is. it doesn't matter how brilliant the framers were. it doesn't matter how good or bad our advocacy in this trial is. it doesn't matter how well-written the oath of
impartiality is, if right doesn't matter, we are lost. if the truth doesn't matter, we are lost. the framers could not protect us from ourselves if right and truth don't matter. and you know what he did was not right. that is what they do in the old 'suntry that colonel vindman father came from or the old countries your ancestors came from or maybe you came from. here, right is supposed to matter. it is what has made us the greatest nation on earth. usconstitution can protect if right doesn't matter anymore trustu know you can't this president to do what is right for this country.
trust he will do what is right for donald trump. host: that took place yesterday, vindman wasnd men the director of european affairs. if you want to see more, go to our website. we will show you more of what took place yesterday during the course of our three hours. 202-748-8000 for democrats. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. on our republican line, we start in mississippi with larry. what did you think about the proceedings yesterday? caller: i think it is okay, but it is a little one sided. what i would like to see is for them to put up a screen in front of the senate, house democrats and everybody and call the president of the ukraine and see what he says and this will settle the situation right away. host: aside from that, the
nature of yesterday you said it democratsded because were presenting their side. caller: they never show the republicans interviewing them. they need to show if everyone of them were asked if they believed he did wrong. host: do you think the white house team will do that? caller: i am hoping they will. i think the president of the ukraine is the number one most important witness and he will bring up the truth because he was the one on the other end of the line. host: mavis calling on our line for independents, go ahead. caller: good morning. i have been watching the trial with some of the senators who have made a name for themselves who are respected
over the years, right is right, wrong is wrong, we teach our kids that and if the president has done wrong, to see some of these senators on the tv turning themselves into a pretzel trying to explain wrong and make it right. we have to stand up for the rule of law. carolina,lks in south you all really need to go and find your senator. host: are you talking about lindsey graham in particular? caller: he was once a well respected man and now you do not know who he is. i say to the people of south carolina, please call your senator because he is missing in action. host: why do you think it is unusual for republican senators to defend? ? president? caller: i am not saying you cannot defend.
you cannot defend wrong. if the president has done something wrong and we have a constitution, he must live by the constitution and we must say if he was right, he was right and if he was wrong, he was wrong. of the people defending the president yesterday was part of the president white house team, not necessarily the team of lawyers, but other legislators, at least elise stefanik talked about the material and the evidence presented by democratic leaders. [video clip] >> i wanted to address the video clips played. the fact they chose professors to speak to a million americans, they are not in touch with the viewpoints. i think it helps the president's case democrats continue to put up anti-trump professors as key witnesses and i want to address fiona hill's testimony.
what was not shown was the response and the questions from house intelligence members who voted in support of an account acknowledging russian interference in the 2016 election and our proposals about how to combat foreign interference. that is the excerpt not shown. i anticipate we will continue to set the record straight. host: i am guessing the house speaker, nancy pelosi, is in a bad way watching these managers talking to the wall. she got pushed into the biggest mistake of her life. patrick saying adam schiff nailed it with his closing argument, right matters and the president will do it again and again. no matter the final outcome, this year's state of the union in two weeks will be unlike any other in history. contact your elected officials and let them know you want this to be a fair and open trial with witnesses and documents upheld. our only hope is to sway them
.ith our collective outrage off our facebook page, this is monica saying what a joke, this whole thing is nothing but a coup against our president. anyone heard of the nixon tapes? knowledge of those tapes only surfaced after the house livengs and only during testimony during the senate trial. mcconnell somehow has his fellow republicans under a spell who have totally forgotten history and precedent. has anyone ever heard of willie sutton? robber?mous serial bank
he was not sentenced for one for alle was sentenced the crimes that preceded the crime he was caught for. host: how it applies to yesterday? caller: you constantly hear the point republicans made their and if that isse we need extrado information? wasn't that enough? host: do you mean the democrats made their case in the house? caller: yes, thank you for correcting me. dems mades are saying their case in the house so we don't need to hear any new information that everyone in the public's hearing. precedents shows takes -- tapes only
surfaced after the house hearings. sampling of small the calls we will take during our time together and keep calling and line yourself up to talk to us. while you are doing that, turn down your televisions and make sure it is set so no feedback when we get a chance to talk to you. here is john mcardle. host 2: after two days of house impeachment managers making their case, you started to see more and more republican starting to push back against that case and the impeachment managers themselves. here is an article from fox news, joni ernst calls out democrats over aid to ukraine, the republican senator saying the hypocrisy is on full display. these are the comments joni ernst made during a break in the impeachment trial yesterday evening. [video clip] >> house democrats, these house
managers did nothing of the sort to provide that assistance to ukraine and yet they are on their high horse, on their high horse about president trump not .oing enough for ukraine this administration has done more than the previous administration did win crimea was being invaded. i have very strong thoughts about that. as we are being lectured by house managers about how they are such great friends to ukraine, got a little information. this year's national defense authorization act, which ukraine,lethal aid to house manager nadler voted no. last year's national defense authorization act which included aid to ukraine, house managers -- loughran, jeffries, and
nadler voted no. this year's omnibus, which included defense spending, aid to ukraine, no, garcia and nadler did not vote. 4 of the house managers have ukraineainst lethal aid and they can sit there and lecture about this president not doing enough for ukraine. this president has done more than they have and he has done more than the previous administration. thank you. host 2: that was senator joni ernst on the bank of cameras, that camera set up in the senate subway catching members at those brakes and on their ways in and out of the senate chamber. one note on her statements, emily cochran tweeted it out after she made those statements
particularly when she was talking about jerry nadler not voting on the omnibus, a democratic official confirming nadler did not vote because he was at home to be with his wife who was in the hospital when that vote took place. one other series of tweets that got a lot of attention, you mentioned colonel alex vindman being brought up on the senate floor yesterday, the director of european affairs a key player in the house impeachment probe, marsha blackburn, the senator from tennessee, the republican senator tweeting out several tweets targeting him, here is a sampling of them. adam schiff is hailing alexander as an american patriot. how patriotic is a to badmouth america in front of russia? another sample of her tweet from yesterday saying alex vindman
broke the chain of command and leaked the contents of the phone call to the whistleblower. how is that not vindictive? she went on to tweet about colonel vindman of few more times. his lawyer with a quick response to members of the media and this statement he put out last night saying this difficult moment in our country calls for seriousness and seriousness of purpose. sacrificedex vindman for our country, he believes in our country and its great institutions including the united states senate. he went on to state a member of the senate at a moment when the senate is undertaking its most solemn responsibility would choose to spread slander about a military member is a testament to cowardice. lt. col. vindman will continue
to do what he has always done, serve our country with honor, the statement from vindman's attorney. marsha blackburn trending on twitter after her comments, one of those who responded to her comments was alyssa milano, the actress who has been in the senate gallery watching the proceedings pointing out to marsha blackburn she is attacking a war hero, that is some of the response to the tweets yesterday. host: some of the responses off our texting service. adam schiff says america deserves a better president, who is he to decide that? he needs to let the american people decide this november. from our twitter feed, this person identifies as thoughtful process saying we knew early on true fact and integrity would never matter to this president or his supporters.
that feature of this presidency will not change. our text service, 202-748-8003. you can call the lines, 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans and .02-748-8002 for independents new york is next, independent line, hello. caller: good morning, pedro. is just strange about how this trial is going. the need for witnesses and yet republicans do not allow it and yet after they show what they heard -- they say we heard this before. it seems like a contradiction. host: whether witnesses show up or not is yet to be determined. caller: i understand that. i guess i am trying to make a broader point as people seem -- for theal trials
president of the united states to be impeached -- i find it legitimateyou have a argument to remove him from office and yet you cannot hear from the people firsthand what needs to be expressed and the jurors do not want to hear the information. it seems like hypocrisy and that is why the american public is fed up with politicians. good afternoon. host: do you suspect he will listen to the white house case starting tomorrow? caller: i will watch and we will see what happens, but i will be surprised -- it seems like they are fighting amongst each other and that is why the american public is so turned off. maryland,rey in hello. caller: people new to realize the president is impeached no matter what happened in this
trial. that is one thing that will stay with his legacy as far as he goes. republicans need to get some courage and stop being scared. about this president -- that is why i like this show because you all tell the truth about everything. host: to the first point you made about the president being impeached, bill clinton was , do you think it affected him negatively? not affect it did him. bill clinton was popular then. this president is not popular. more people want this people remove -- this president removed from office. trialof people think the will vindicate him. the man is impeached. the first president and his
first term being impeached, that never happened before so i hope these republicans realize no -- the president is still impeached. host: do you think the democrats are going to lose? caller: yeah. i think the whole effort is a headache. break off and on. aret now, the democrats putting out evidence of what is happening, but republicans keep saying it is the same old, same old. host: the white house will make their case starting tomorrow and
how many days they go is yet to be determined. you can watch that on c-span 2 even on saturday, 1:00 expected time you can watch the white house team make their case for the president. republican line for massachusetts, henry. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to comment on adam statement lastg night. he is running scared, that is my opinion. the democrat party is threatened they are trump and showing it. casecannot defend their and this closing statement was basically one lie after another. host: such as what? caller: lying about political , political investigation he was requesting. it was not political, it was corruption. i guess the other thing would be
the phone call, he was asking done a lot foras --aine at -- and in return getting nothing back. even after all the evidence they presented, why do you characterize it as running scared? caller: just the way he performed last night, it was a his --ance, his action, .oft spoken words at times host: you don'thost: far as a legal case being presented -- it is legal as far -- rhetoric as far as a legal case being presented? caller: it is the socialist democratic party and they are looking through a socialist pair
of eyes. they are running scared, they are desperate. host: andrew is next, democrats line. caller: yes, i am sorry. i need to know a couple things. how does a 73-year-old blonde fromnherit $400 million daddy to invest in new york real estate? host: hold on. how does that apply specifically to yesterday and the impeachment trial? caller: the impeachment trial, he has got to go. kamala harris is going to put him in prison. i hope they put him in prison his his lawyer, cohen, at back and call for years. can i say what i want to say or are you? ? going to talk over me host: you are off topic. if you want to address the impeachment trial -- goter: i just said he has
to go. where is lee harvey oswald when you need him? host: i agree with -- okay. caller: i agree with the gentleman who called earlier. when youy shocked start investigating corruption -- that is not even a political investigation. what schiff concluded was really funny for me. do you know what he said? burisma andt hack dump materials. who is response will for russian ?acking if we don't have good cyber protection, it is the government we have to worry about. why should trump worry about hazardous materials and blame
trump -- host: aside from that, the case the democrats were making, what did you think of what they brought forward? caller: there is nothing new. one thing i will agree is the central discussion is corruption . that corruption, witnesses have to be called. biden and his son are central to this thing. if that is not investigated, the corruption is not going to hold. host: john bolton and others should be called by the democrats? caller: no doubt about it. i don't know what bolden is going to tell us. trump tried to squeeze the president of the ukraine because he wants the investigation to go on. to say this investigation is political ticket advantage on advantage in the
campaign, that does not sound good. a half-hour in, 2.5 to go for your phone calls taking a look at yesterday's impeachment process and the process overall. we go back to john mcardle. host 2: we are starting to get more insight into some of the key moments of the trial from earlier this week. politico takes a look at one of those moments, the story perhaps per hind that moment when chief justice john roberts admonished both sides during the impeachment trial to remember where they were on the floor of the senate, this is the story from burgess everett. susan collins was stunned by jerry nadler's late night diatribe against what he deemed a cover-up. she wrote a note to john roberts . the main republican senate will
not affect her votes during the impeachment trial. collins confirmed she dahda down -- jotted down a note. she believes the back between jerry nadler and pat cipollone violated senate rules and felt compelled to point out even though senators are required to stay at their desks and not speak during the trial, she wanted to let the chief justice know it reminded me if we were in a normal debate, the rule would have been invoked to strike the words of the senators for impugning another senator. i wrote a note raising a violation and shortly thereafter, the chief justice did admonished both sides and i was glad i did. my voteng to cast regardless of the congressman's performance talking about nadler, his negative comments about the senate will not have any impact. if you want to read that story,
it came out yesterday afternoon and burgess everett is the author. if you go to the white house website, you can find the unclassified memorandum of telephone conversation between president trump and the president of ukraine. it took place july 25 from 9:03 to 9:33. it was that phone call and the timing of it, one of the points of information brought forth by one of the house managers yesterday, sylvia garcia. [video clip] >> the long and short of it is there was no basis for the investigation the president was none.ng and pushing, he was doing it only for his own political benefit. let's look one more important reason why it is clear president
trump simply wanted a political benefit from ukraine's announcement of this investigation and did not care .bout the underlying conduct the allegations against vice president biden were based on events that occurred in late 2015 and early 2016. they are all -- they were all well-publicized at the time, but as soon as president trump took office, he increased military support to ukraine in 2017 and , but it year, 2018 over threel 2019, years after vice president biden called for the removal, three years after, that president trump started pushing ukraine to investigate that conduct. what changed?
what changed? why did president trump not care at all about biden costs request and the removal the year after it happened in 2017 or the next year in 2018? senators, you know what changed in 2019, when president trump suddenly cared, it is that biden got in the race. host: all of that available at c-span.org. c-span 2 is where you can watch today's proceedings starting at 1:00. james in virginia, go ahead. i have got to say. i am a trump supporter, but the impeachment, i have been listening to it, i find all the characters more interesting. you have this colonel vindman asked by the president of
ukraine to be the defense minister. they only met for a couple minutes. it would you being asked by an nbc to be the president, you would probably do a good job. from the ambassador over there, it is crazy. host: are you saying it is not strong enough in your opinion as far as what they presented? caller: no. the whole thing that started this was when biden got on tv and bragged about it and then trump did his thing to inquire about it and then you have them saying they did the investigation and it was never completed because the oligarch disappeared. the investigation was never completed in ukraine and i don't understand why are they looking for this oligarch that ran out with $20 billion?
watch the you democrats as they made their case and will you watch the white house team make there's? -- theirs? caller: i listen to the first thing the first day and the second day, it was like watching paint dry. i could not keep my eyes open. i want -- got home and went to bed at 7:00. i turned it on and it put me soundest -- sound asleep. host: that is james on our ourpendent line -- on republican line. james on our independent line, go ahead. trump: i just believe went about exposing corruption the wrong way. i don't think it is an impeachable defense, trump is not a career politician. he should have gone to the american people saying we need to investigate this, ukrainians
need to investigate this, it is all of our duty to expose corruption. i believe he went about it the wrong way, but i do not believe .t is an impeachable offense biden could have stopped it in his tracks by saying we welcome an investigation. i will give you any information you need, it will just clear my name. he should welcome the investigation if he is innocent. why would you worry about being investigated if you are guilty? host: are you talking about the specific phone call between the president and the ukrainian president? caller: yes, he should have gone to the american people and went to the media, he talked about -- talked about with the bidens did and saying he believes it is wrong, the ukrainians need to investigate, encourage the ukrainians to investigate that
way instead of doing it -- he is not a career politician and i believe he went about it the wrong way. host: you probably heard the president call the phone call perfect. would you say that is the case or not the case or how would you define that? caller: he stretches the truth. what politician doesn't? let's be honest. host: that is james on our independent line. let's hear from charlie in new york, republican line, good morning. charlie in new york? charlie.time for in illinois, mill democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. host: hi. caller: pedro? host: you are on. caller: i am calling regarding the impeachment and are you
there? host: yeah, go ahead. caller: this morning on one of the news channels, rudy giuliani was on there and he has a news conference that starts around noon today, i think 11:00 central. he is going to reveal a lot of g ininformation he has undu ukraine on the bidens and corruption. i will be interested to hear his side of it. that will be interesting to hear. also, we are still waiting on the ig report. until that comes out by horwitz and the barr report and giuliani picturell get a fuller of what happened. i have something to say about the media. i want people to take a notice about these young kids, 21, 25, 23 years old out of these fresh liberal, socialist universities
and colleges and the tone of questioning they give the republicans compared to democrats and this goes on every day, you can clearly see what side they are on. you can clearly see they support the democrats just in the line of questioning. .o way here is the biggest one, number three, we have one of the biggest stories under the pres'' nose and the reporters and the investigators, one of the biggest stories in our history is taking place in front of our very eyes and we don't even have a journalist or an investigator outside of a handful who can uncover -- basically what i am trying to say is we have a government coup in effect for the past three years. i have watched this go down the pipe day after day. host: you are a little farther
than what we are talking about today although we will bring you information on what you are talking about shortly. let's hear from douglas in forks, washington, republican line. caller: good morning. i wanted to say one of the democrat callers said the impeachment was going to stick with president trump forever. that may be true, but it is not going to bother him. they say he was thin-skinned, he is thick skinned. nobody else would have taken all of this. i want to say when vindman storms a beach, i will consider him a hero. host: he is a purple heart recipient. caller: he was shocked a little bit by a roadside bomb or something like that. i guess i can say i am grateful for his service, but i just don't think sometimes it
warrants being a hero. as far as the impeachment going on right now, i have watched all of it. i have watched all day, believe it or not and it is like the same thing being said and it is the same thing they did during their investigation, i watched all of that also and all i can say is i cannot really say an opinion. i have to see what trump lawyers say and what they bring up. host: for everything you have thinkso far, what do you faces the white house team in comparison to what you have heard so far? i can kind of see what they are saying and there is may be some of this -- maybe trump should not have said certain things in the call, maybe he did
ask for them to look into biden, but i don't think it is impeachable. i don't think we should get rid of him for it, especially in this election year. i think this started a long time ago just to read -- hurt his reelection chances. i want to point out real -- one thing real quick. all the little clips they are taking from the investigation time, that is what i cannot wait team willtrump's let's see. i can't wait until they show the rest of what is being said because they keep taking little clips and cutting them off and that is not fair. clipsby the way, those the last caller referred to, part of the house impeachment process on the house side. if you want to see everything
that happened, not only the clips, but everything surrounding what was said, we invite you to go to our c-span website, all of those hearings kept there. you can watch not only what was said, watch the context of everything said, all of that available at our website. we go back to john mcardle. following up on that last call, you were talking about the c-span archives and viewers can co-back -- go back and listen to colonel vindman talk about why he received the purple heart. this is a story from the washington examiner reminding people of that moment in his testimony before the house intelligence committee. about whensked him he earned his purple heart. he said in response in 2014 and the ramp up to probably the largest urban operation in
decades we were conducting a reconnaissance patrol in conduction -- conjunction with marines. he received a purple heart and an'scombat infantrym badge. he deployed to iraq from totember 2004 to 2005 prior his current role, he served at the pentagon from september 2015 to july 2018. the washington examiner story from during the impeachment hearings in november talks about that. available at our c-span.org archives and following up on the caller before that, his reference to rudy giuliani releasing new information. this is the tweet the caller was referring to. the president's personal
attorney saying he is ready to do fox and friends and give them evidence about the extent of democratic corruption, encouraging followers to look for a link on twitter at about information.r that we will see later today what rudy giuliani is talking about and two more tweets, 1 -- both from the president, this is the president after 7:30 eastern this morning on twitter saying after having being treated unbelievably unfairly in the hoursand having to endure after hours of corruption, it looks like my lawyers will be forced to start on saturday, which will be called death valley in television, recording to the 24 hours -- referring to the 24 hours they get to make their case. today.se it or lose it
the senate will be in session tomorrow and saturday, not in session on sunday, so if the lawyers go longer, they will pick up again on monday. one more from the president referring to his appearance at the march for life. the president getting ready to speak and his remarks will happen about 12:15. tweet noting the president of the march for life saying we have never had a president of the united states, in person to the march for life, but now we do and the president say see you later today. from ourtext --host: text, this is tim from rhode island. senate democrats are after senate seats, they want their power back. jeremy off of twitter says i would like to see a relevant --
see relevant witnesses and documents, like an actual fair, trial. there is a lot of ways you can phoneus aside from the lines. here is sean and baltimore, maryland, independent line. i'll just say a couple things about the previous callers. i think a lot of people need to before they even speak. to go after the credibility of the people who testified, i think that is plain wrong and the question of vindman's military background and whether or not he deserves to have a purple heart, that is wrong. people are going to think and feel how they want to, basically. .egardless of the evidence
and a couple other things. host: are you saying those offered testimony should be taken at face value? caller: yes, they should be. you don't believe trump, but you believe these people that dedicated their whole lives to their profession? but you believe trump? this guy lies every day about something. it is clear. everything is clear. host: for those critics of the witnesses, do you think that is part of their job to at least cast doubt on the witnesses being presented in any trial? .aller: i believe however, to go after their after theird go
, some of your callers have never even heard of those people before this whole trial. before you can even speak and try to assassinate their characters, i think that is wrong. you have a president every day , you have people that already have their minds made up . i am not democrat or republican, but i clearly see what is going on here. host: do you have your mind made up? caller: i do not have my mind made up. i amer, i do see -- if innocent, i would make sure i would comply with all subpoenas. make sure all the documents are
issued, make sure all witnesses come forward if i am innocent. that is plain and simple. comments's leave your there. to the point you made when it comes to witnesses, that is the point senator lindsey graham made before cameras talking about the idea of witnesses and specifically targeting his comments to joe and hunter biden. [video clip] hill, former national security council official basically testified this theory you are exploring -- >> about the russian misinformation, that is something we should be concerned about. when rudy is running around in the ukraine and people are providing aid, let me tell you what they did, everything should go through the intel committee because the russians are trying to blame the ukrainians and
everybody else. i get that. this idea of the servers in ukraine, i don't buy that for a bit. crowd strike, that has internet -- lore to it. as for the bidens, i can promise you no one has looked at whether or not there was a conflict of interest and no one has taken the time to explain how hunter biden got rich in the ukraine and his father did not know anything about it. nobody has looked at whether or not when the prosecutor was fired the next prosecutor refused -- somebody needs to look at it. if it were lindsey graham or mike pence or donald trump, you would be looking. >> is joe biden corrupt? >> i don't think he is corrupt,
but i don't think he is beyond being looked at. how many members of the body, children, are on foreign boards -- members of the body's children are on foreign boards relieving the -- receiving this money? y's stepson, hunter biden, iny gave donations to a fund delaware on behalf of both. i love joe biden, but i am not going to sit on the sidelines and watch the trump's be look that -- and looked at. joe biden is one of the finest men i know, but he has got to explain this. how did hunter biden get $1.5 billion to invest when he has been in business for 60 days from china? host: that was lindsey graham talking about the proceedings house democrats have been making as part of the impeachment team.
that will continue and finish today starting at 1:00 this afternoon, the white house team will make their case starting tomorrow. you can watch at c-span 2 and follow along at c-span.org. joining us from capitol hill, senater richard blumenthal. thank you for joining us. guest: thank you, pedro. good to be with you. host: what is the sense of communication between republican and democrat senators? guest: very little communication. very little interaction of what we have been hearing and seeing. republicans seem to be paying attention, but the proof will be when we vote on whether to call more witnesses or documents. those subpoenas are absolutely necessary. the detail, the scope and magnitude of this conspiracy to abuse power for the president's personal benefit is soliciting a foreign power to investigate a
united states citizen to smear a political opponent in return for releasing taxpayer-funded to be reallyhas completed in terms of the story and all of the evidence coming forward as we seek the truth and that will be the test on whether or not my republican colleagues are listening. host: what level of communication are you hearing about the topic of witnesses and whether they will be admitted? guest: again, some of my colleagues are making noises principally in their home state. for example, senator collins in maine said she was open to the possibility of witnesses, same with lisa murkowski. i think they are responding to what they are hearing at home. the test will be what they do, not what they say. i have been disappointed. a lot of times we need 4
senators to vote for those witnesses and documents and their is a lot of new information coming forth in this trial. yesterday we learned the department of justice either would not or was never asked to investigate the whole biden corruption that really is a figment of donald trump's imagination. the reason they would not be involved or were never asked is there is no there there. the bidens were carrying out united states policy as opposed to donald trump serving his personal interest by withholding funds and demanding a smear investigation of the bidens. host: to that end because of yesterday's empresa tatian that included presentations about -- presentation that included presentations about the bidens and burisma -- is that giving leeway to having hunter
or biden testify? donald trump's corrupt abuse of power had nothing to do with the bidens. what we have seen graphically is how the president used the oval office to advance a personal against and how he went united states policy as opposed to joe biden, who was implementing established policy. donald trump was going against united states policy, but against the urging of his advisors to release military aid and gave president zelenskiy a meeting at the white house. ukraine at the time was fighting for its life against russia, their enemy and our enemy. and yet donald trump was undermining that defense by withholding aid illegally because he was violating the
impoundment control act as the subsequently gao recently found and that was contrary to united states interest. host: back to the idea case? guest: the door is already opened. the house was successful in debunking and discrediting the whole biden conspiracy theory before it was raised. prosecutoring been a , united states a prosecutor -- attorney and attorney general of my state, when you put the witness on the stand you get the bad stuff out while they are testifying rather than leave it to cross-examination. you want to show the jury you know the bad stuff, but the case is still credible in trust for
the. that is what the house managers were doing, stating that they know about the biden allegations but showing that they were baseless and groundless. all of the witness testimony with knowledge about it that was played yesterday in the senate chamber also said in effect it was groundless and baseless. host: when it comes to the white house presentation tomorrow, what is your strategy as far as the information presented on their side? have themorrow they opportunity to begin their case. we have virtually no role as members of the senate, until we start our questioning which will be at the conclusion. we will have some questions that go to the core of the false conspiracy theory, their attempt to defend the president despite the words from his own mouth. in fact, just within the last 48
hours when he spoke in davo's he said in effect he was withholding evidence and obstructing justice. on the white house lawn october 3, he said the ukraine should investigate the bidens along with the chinese. those kinds of statements, along with that smoking gun, the july 25 transcript, i would like you to do us a favor. would like quote, i you to do us a favor, though. it was not a favor for the united states. it was a favor for him. he was abusing the power of his office for personal game, -- gain, in essence soliciting a bribe. that smear, he was looking for the announcement of it, that smear of his opponent, and he was looking forward to it, and
withholding the money was an official act in order to get that. because ofve seen the many days and the long hours, senators getting up and moving around. what would you cast as far as you and your fellow senators as far as the interest being paid about the information whether they are in seats listening to it? attention,e is close particularly at the most dramatic moments, colonel ven worried about his father standing up to the president of the united states and assuring his dad, it is america, right matters. and then adam schiff recalling that statement in his last closing summation of the day, there was clearly very little if any movement in the chamber at those moments. there were other moments where
people moved to stretch or take a bathroom break, but i am large, that chamber is full. quality of the presentation has been really magnificent in summoning the detail and the breadth, all of the video and the organization of it. it has really been a very riveting performance. host: we heard senator joni ernst earlier saying as far as the information presented, the republicans and she felt like they were being lectured. we heard jerry nadler saying if the senators went along with it, republican senators, this was a cover-up. does that leave a bad taste in their mouth? guest: i think most of us are trying to put out of our mind the personal aspect of it, and
look at the facts, the law, the evidence. that is why we need additional documents and witnesses, because they can complete the story. there is already overwhelming evidence in a jury trial and i could say, i rest my case, but americans are entitled to see all of those documents and witnesses who had eyes and ears on the president. they were in the room. mick mulvaney took the president's order to withhold the money from the ukraine. john bolton tried to talk him out of it. the documents are black and white. documents do not lie. we are entitled to them. we are not doing the house's job. the house was blocked by the president who refused to provide
those documents and prevented the witnesses from coming forward. our responsibility is to seek the truth and put aside whether we like the lawyers are not on either side. we need to look at the facts and the law and put country above party. host: that is senater richard blumenthal, member of the judiciary committee. yesterday, the justice department revealed fisa warrants against carter page were declared invalid. what do you think? guest: they should support the call for reform i have made. it reinforces the idea there needs to be a check and balance on adversarial scrutiny as i have urged. i hope my republican colleagues will join me, because they seem to share these misgivings about the potential accuracy of the .rocess in every other court there are two sides.
in this court, there is only one. there is no check and balance. this finding by the department of justice should maybe provide some additional momentum for reform. host: do you think it shades the investigation into russia? guest: there was overwhelming evidence to support those .arrants with carter page maybe a couple of warrants were incorrect in some respect. i want to look at what the department of justice found. host: richard blumenthal, one of the senator sitting in hearing during the impeachment process, thank you so much for your time. guest: thank you. host: we will hear from mike in strongsville, ohio on the republican line. go ahead. ohio, hi.
we will go to stuart in st. petersburg, florida, republican line. caller: good morning. what i find interesting and listening to the senator calling certain people henchmen, that is beneath the senator saying that. as far as witnesses goes, i would love to see them. i would love to see bolton coming on. the democrats are playing bolton as they are playing mueller. if bolton comes in and says nothing was wrong and what the president did, how many democrats would be screaming that bolton is lying or something is going on? i want to see evidence. i want to see what takes place. as far as whether the republicans speak or the democrats speak about what is going on, you hear just the one sidedness. democrats saying, it is all
perfect. republicans going, it is not. i would like to see witnesses and i know i am going against the norm. bolton can come in, be understandingd that if a senator starts going over the line of asking questions he should ask, it could be stopped in a heartbeat. for calling of witnesses, do you think that is a risk? he said initially you think nothing might occur from bolton testifying, but is it a risk worth taking? caller: i don't think so. i understand bolton left on bad terms with the president, and sometimes even that taking place , it is one of those things you have to show. it is hard to say what would be
said. documents being released, the senate can look at the documents before they are released and what needs to be redacted should be redacted, because there are things that cannot be said. the president's conversations in a room, and i guarantee we go all the way back to jfk to trump, presidents may have said something about foreign leaders that we don't want other people to know about. jaclyn ins hear from new jersey, independent line. caller: good morning. you know, whether we have witnesses or not it is fine. i think we have the greatest -- donald trump, every day he comes out and proves his guilt. this is not about burisma or biden or hunter biden that they want to question.
it is about whether or not it is unlawful and unconstitutional and abuse of power to ask a foreign government to investigate a united states citizen, and that is what donald trump did. if what he did was wrong, if he is guilty of doing that, then the consequences are removal. bidensreally wanted the investigated, why didn't he speak to the fbi or the cia? host: i apologize, you are breaking up a little bit. if you are still there, finish your thought. caller: the reality is, donald trump needs to cheat to win. people keep saying all republicans are behind him. only one third of this country identifies as republican so the majority of people in this country are not for him.
host: we will take more of your calls right after this from john mcardle. host: i just want to take a minute to offer an update from the campaign 2020 trail, and starting with one of those senate impeachment trial jurors and a former democratic presidential candidate, the story from "the new york times" kamala harris said to be weighing and enforcement of joe biden. the move is unlikely to happen until after the impeachment trial is over. -- they say it could enhance her chances of becoming vice president but could anger liberals. this coming 10 days ahead of the iowa caucuses, and joe biden out with a new ad before the iowa caucuses. this is airing, talking about him being the safest choice in the 2020 presidential race. here is that new ad.
[video clip] >> every day he is president, donald trump poses a threat. joe biden is the strongest candidate. he beats trump most nationally. this is no time to take a risk. we need our strongest candidate, so let's nominate the gem -- democrat trump fears the most. >> i am joe biden and i approve this message. clip]f video host: that is what they are seeing in iowa. emerson college finding two clear front runners, joe biden leading with 30% followed by bernie sanders at 27%. , andrewh warren at 13% yang at 8%, michael bloomberg at 7%, mayor pete at 6%, amy
klobuchar at 4%. michael bloomberg, it was a new ad for michael bloomberg that got attention from donald trump. we showed that ad yesterday. amy klobuchar also out with a new ad. we want to show you her latest. [video clip] >> i am amy klobuchar and i approve this message. >> 100 days, 100 ways to restore decency and help. >> my plan will not fit in a tv ad, but let's give it a go. ,ejoin the climate agreement fire betsy devos, expand v.a. benefits, closed separately polls -- >> as president, she will work to reset our policies from day one. clip]f video host: one more add to show you, not for democratic presidential candidate but from the
anti-trump group democracy together, headed by bill kristol. they are calling for president ade -- president pence. the released online, not inc. and marshall form -- not in commercial form yet. the new group calling for president pence, here is that. >> mike pence does not grab about sexually assaulting women. pressuree does not foreign governments. mike pence does not mark and make fun of people with handicaps. >> you got to see this guy. >> donald trump is being impeached. it is time for president pence. at least it's an improvement. host: we have been taking your
phone calls over the last few days on the impeachment process and the senate will continue doing so until the end of this program. here is how you can reach us, (202) 748-8000, democrats. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. sean in hawaii, independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i find a lot of irony in this impeachment process. the president, when he was was a memberffice, of the republican party and they are backing him out touchup. the house has voted to impeach.
[indiscernible] i am going to have to apologize. if you manage to call back in and maybe get a better connection, please dope -- please do so. if you can get back in, we will get you back on. democrats line, don in michigan. caller: good morning. i need to make two quick points on the impeachment trial. i have been watching it from the house hearings until now. democrats are making a very good case. they are just using trump's own statements and own people that he appointed in the state department against him. if you don't believe it, you got your head in the sand. for people that say the
democrats wanted to impeach trump from the beginning of his campaign, i would say to the republicans that they are right, trump that point, i say gave the democrats and the country the evidence and the proof that they needed to impeach him. he should be impeached. host: democrats who call for impeachment early, you don't think it shaves this process? caller: no, because in the beginning of president obama's presidency, mitch mcconnell said he was going to make him a one term president and for eight years they did nothing to help obama. a differents on size than calling for impeachment. caller: i can call for impeachment, i can say what you fired, but if you go to your job and perform your job correctly and you do the right thing, there is no evidence to fire
you. if you give me evidence that i can fire you, then you gave me the evidence to fire you. what is wrong with that? host: to the point of evidence, you talked about what was presented and some of the callers earlier on are saying you are seeing certain clips of testimony being played and things like that, and questioning if there is not context. what do you think of that? caller: there is no context until you get the rest of the evidence. host: for the clips played, as rest -- as far as the rest of the testimony and what happened leading up to now caller:. -- leading up to now. caller: the people coming to testify are career professionals , people that we have given secret clearances to, people that have seen some of the most secretive stuff this government has to hide.
and they come to the american people and say, i see something that is wrong and you say, i don't trust them but i trust the person who has been lying to me from day one? it is hard, who do you believe? i believe the career professionals, not the guy trying to protect his job. host: ed in ohio, colombian station -- columbia station, republican line. caller: ukraine is one of the most corrupt countries and this country has known that. , i wouldn't care .f they could prove this even bill kristol, he is not a
real republican. blumenthal was against kavanaugh and was caught lying before his election. i am a vet 30 years. he said he was a veteran from vietnam, which proved to be a 100% lie. he apologized and they rican -- reelect him. host: back to the evidence presented, one of the cases being made today is obstruction of justice. do you think holding off on witnesses and documents, that is not obstruction? caller: no, are you kidding me? before he was in, biden, 13 times he was in ukraine -- his family, he always sends his family. he has one point some billion shareholders. saying, likeps blumenthal -- host: back to president trump,
the witnesses and documents he held off, is that obstruction? caller: no, because the evidence and the facts prove nothing. everything they have brought from the democrats so far four months ago, they bring in witnesses, second and third parties. the woman who was fired, and ambassador. he has a political activist on the left. the chain of command in the military, that guy, his own army chain of command or, he jumps over chain of command. there is so much dirt on that guy, it is a joke. host: gloria, pittsburgh, pennsylvania, democrats line. caller: i just wanted to say tellingwas pretty whenever i heard joni ernst speaking to reporters saying that trump did everything he could do to help ukraine, and he
-- she was just making this point. that is the point democrats made, he did all this help but then all of a sudden he didn't want to help no more. all of a sudden there is corruption when joe biden comes. claimwhen she makes the this administration has done more than the obama administration, what do you say to that? caller: that he has done more? host: this administration. caller: he has done some things for him but he quit as soon as joe biden came into the race. i am not going to say he didn't do anything for them. 1.i would like to make, that is her argument. that is all you can come up with. thataller was so offended she had to send up a letter. does she send the letters to president trump? she not offended by everything he does and all the presentation
she is witnessing? she not offended by all she is hearing enough to call a witness? , willurkowski saying evidence even matter? it is pretty telling that we know where this is going. as far as susan collins goes, the only way she will vote for somebody will be if another person votes with her or if she is not -- the fourth person voting. she will not be the first and only and she will not be the fourth vote. host: that is gloria. one of the people making presentations yesterday, val demings of florida. she spoke to senators on behalf of the american voters and responded to criticisms that these efforts by the democrats are about the 2020 election. also -- each this
time we remind this body of the president's scheme to cheat to say some of his defenders that we are only concerned about winning the next election, the democrats are only doing this to win the next election, but you know better. because this trial is much bigger. -- much bigger than anyone election, and much bigger than any one president. this moment is about the american people. this moment is about ensuring that every voter, whether a maid or a janitor, whether a nurse, teacher, truck driver, whether a , that theirmechanic vote matters and that american
elections are decided by the american people. president trump acted corruptly. he abused the power of his office by ordering u.s. diplomats to work with his political agents to solicit two politically motivated investigations by ukraine. the investigations were designed solely to help his personal interest, not our national interest. neither investigation solicited by president trump had anything to do with promoting u.s. foreign policy or u.s. national security. host: if you want to see more, go to our website at c-span.org. here is john mcardle. host: when you were talking to
senator blumenthal, you asked about the attention being paid by senators to the impeachment managers' case. so far 16 hours and seven minutes they have presented so far asking whether there has been some distractions among fromors, here is a tweet one msnbc reporter monitoring the floor from the galleries. he writes -- senator burr has a fidget spinner. rand paul of kentucky has quite the sketch of the capital going and marsha blackburn is reading a book. i want to burrow into a couple of those. the hill newspaper with a story about the fidget spinner. senator burr provided one to himself and his colleagues for use during the trial. a spokesperson confirmed he gave out those toys and others
including stress balls. he handed those out at a weekly lunch. pickingessean newspaper up on marsha blackburn's reading of a book and her tweets about and thealex vinman, washington post columnist jennifer rubin picking up on marsha blackburn reading a book. her tweet -- the senator might improve her understanding of the facts and law if she paid attention, saying her reading on the floor is shameful. the senator from tennessee responding directly in a tweet, saying, i am reading resistance at all cost. read the chapter on instruction -- obstruction. are the bestmamas at multitasking. try it.
the president today also brings strassel,essful, -- crying chuck never had what it takes and never will, and he linked it to her column. the headline on that column, schumer whiffs on impeachment, the democratic leader succeeds only in uniting the democrat caucus. just a couple of other tweets , marsha blackburn tweeted later in the afternoon about the obama administration strategically withholding funding and foreign aid to countries like ukraine and pakistan and columbia, the philippines, egypt, honduras, and others down the line and a tweet that came at about 4:00 p.m., which got a response from
chris van hollen of maryland. here is his direct response -- none of that aid was withheld because obama wanted to cheat in an election by blackmailing a foreign country. they also notified congress of a national security justification consistent with the law. was in a cover-up and they didn't break the law, unlike this administration. , key largo, florida, democrats line. caller: i see this in a different light. i don't really see they are trying to get biden to show he was corrupt. i think it is more based on what donald trump and putin are cooking up as far as trying to show that ukrainian people are dishonest and not worthy of our protection.
i think that is more important than anything else that we are really looking at. host: why do you use the term "cooking up"? caller: they are conspiring with each other. host: what convinces you of that? caller: when they had that meeting in -- wherever they were , and they had a conversation for a couple of hours and we don't know anything about it. , that as i'm concerned sounds like conspiring to do something that other people don't realize what they are doing. also, i am concerned about these they areat claim concerned about abortion. host: we will keep it to the topic at hand for today. rudy in seattle, democrats line.
caller: hi. having watched this thing since and all the evidence that was gathered in the house, theppears to me that conclusion is, it is already cooked in. there isn't going to be any witnesses. there will be nothing at the end of this. these people are going to be so tired, they are just going to want out of it. host: what does that say about the exercise as a whole? caller: as long as trump is to keep all the witnesses that are really pertinent to this trial, if you can't call a witness, then you
can't get to the truth. it is that simple. all of the documents -- and gotp said himself, we have all the documents, they haven't got any, so what does that tell you? this is nothing but a scam. host: if the documents and witnesses are called for, legal battles will take place. are you comfortable with this stretching out? caller: i think they will have to call a recess and when they are able to get through the court system, they can come back and make their decision at the end. that is not the way it is going to go. thank you for taking the call. host: rudy in washington state. let's hear from senator john ,arrasso about the trial particularly as it leads forward. >> this is a very serious issue,
serious thing for the country, taking a president and removing him or her from office. we have never done it in the entire history of the united states. it is not about one witness or another. there is amount of evidence the democrats say they have which is overwhelming, convincing, rocksolid, a mountain of evidence. there have been opening arguments and it is time for the president to have his defense presented, and time for the senate to ask our questions and make a decision on final judgment, of do we need more information or have we heard enough? there are four members of the senate running against the president. voting is starting in a few days. it sounded like adam schiff was saying the voters cannot be trusted. he was saying they cannot be trusted in 2016 and cannot be ought ton 2020, and he determine who the president of the united states is.
it is time for the voters to speak and they will start speaking in nine or 10 days in iowa, and the whole country will have a chance to make it decision in november. i have a lot more confidence in the voters of the united states to make the right decision for our country. barrasso, onejohn of those people talking about the impeachment trial, a republican making the case for what is going on. we will show you more as the morning plays out. (202) 748-8000 democrats. (202) 748-8001 republicans. .ndependents, (202) 748-8002 and you can text us at (202) 748-8003. host: a reminder to viewers while the impeachment trial continues starting at 1:00 p.m., president trump on his schedule today has a speaking engagement. he is going to be the first
president to speak to the march for life taking place in washington, d.c., some hundred thousand antiabortion activists in washington, d.c., on hand, expected to be on the national mall to listen to the president. -- theccarthy saying fight for life will win in america, not only because it is right but gives people hope that every life has value and deserves a chance. a tweet from senator john kennedy just before 8:30 -- expectant mothers and unborn quality need access to care but the abortion industry cuts corners at their expense. i introduced the pregnant women health and safety act to ensure women have easy access to protective care. when it comes to legislation,
news out of tennessee yesterday, governor bill lee announced tennessee republicans will pursue comprehensive restrictions on abortion this legislative session, building on with the last year fetal heart beat bill. the supporteceive from the lieutenant governor. otherw approach includes willion -- the legislation specify that bands on abortions abortions will kick in at eight, 10, 12 weeks. back to the march for life in washington, d.c., one other story from fox news quoting elisa martinez who was running
for the senate out of new mexico , wondering if the march for life will be covered because as martina's rights, the truth. our coverage of the march for beginslly in washington at noon. you can watch on c-span and c-span.org, or listen on c-span radio. shirley -- host: surely in hot springs, arkansas, republican line. caller: good morning. i have held on for a long time but i am hoping i can still speak. host: go ahead. caller: i watched the whole thing. i have a lot of time to watch and it is interesting. i have a son that was an attorney who was killed in a car
wreck, and i always would help him through things and show him the simplest way to look at things. i think they are just not looking at this. the president was friendly with the new president in ukraine, and i think he promised that he was going to get rid of corruption in that place. gave the moneyt for two years but this year they had a new president and that is why he called and asked him to find out about the corruption. another thing i would like to know the fbie all has already admitted this was all a false thing. i don't understand why they are wasting their time doing all this to our president. host: jeremy and lawrence, kansas.- in laurens,
caller: i would just like to say that if we had a functioning rule of law in this country, this would be an open and shut case. -- i think we have a dysfunctional rule of law in this country. i think what people should do is read the book "proof of conspiracy: how trump's international collusion is threatening american democracy" by seth abramson. host: when you say you don't think there is a functioning rule of law, give me a specific why? caller: is it a coincidence that the key members of the jeffrey epstein legal team are the ones who are now also defending the president from an open and shut the ongoingcally violations of the emoluments
clause that his entire administration has been from day one. alan dershowitz and kenneth starr where there to help make the sweetheart deal with former secretary of labor alex acosta that trump reported -- appointed. host: how does that appeal to the impeachment trial? caller: this is where the democrats have failed, and i brought up that book -- host: tell me, how did the democrats fail? caller: they limited the hangout of trump's crimes only to russia. there is a whole middle east component to this. i we have seen recently with the breaking story about the hacking bythe phone of jeff bezos, apparently the head of the saudi arabian government -- host: carlos, ridgewood, new york, democratic line.
caller: i am wondering why nobody understands that everything trump is doing is for putin. everything leads right back to russia. nobody sees this. he tries to say ukraine is corrupt, but the only one is putin. specificlos, give me a how this leads back to russia. caller: how it leads back to is doing theho pushing up on ukraine? russia. they are trying to take over their country. we hold back money from them, they are not able to protect themselves, and they don't have respect for nobody. host: as the president said, the money was eventually released. caller: eventually, but in all that time before putin did what he wanted and more ukrainians died. that is exactly what happened. everything trump does leads back
to putin. he is benefiting from everything. host: steve in bristol, connecticut, independent line. caller: there was a quid pro quo . the witness in these trials, it is reported that trump and these republican jurors stay in lockstep or else, i will not help you with your campaign. if this was a democrat president, i would want him out. the security and loyalty to this country comes first. when it comes to biden, when biden held his money back, many countries were behind biden when he did that. i don't know where these people are getting their information, but loyalty and security comes first. host: paul in clay city, kentucky. caller: i just can't believe how
much dumber the democrats have made the american people these days. think about it. congress, they are going to get him for obstruction for exercising his right to defend himself. that makes no sense. it as anyou don't see active obstruction as far as the witnesses and the documents? caller: no. if the house won't let him exercise his right to defend his self, what do we have? we have nothing. bill,erie, pennsylvania, independent line. caller: good morning. thank goodness c-span is covering this. i have been watching it day in and day out and in between we go to the other networks, and the other networks, we have been copying it down. againstout 85% or 90%
the administration. that is not fair. we talk about free and fair elections in america, let's go back to the primary of 2016 when we were supporting bernie sanders and the dnc pulled the rug out from underneath bernie sanders. they are starting to do it again right now. host: as we go back to 2016, stick to the impeachment process. what do you think as far as what has played out? caller: what has played out is when i turned the television on and i see that the department of justice has found that the last two fisa warrants are illegal, that tells me a lot of things nonbeliever i was a -- but when we find out -- host: how does that apply to the
impeachment process? caller: because it all points to corruption. one more point. if anybody had anything to do with the last election, it was james comey. when he came on and said all those bad things about hillary, it pennsylvania and ohio, was only about 100,000 votes that made the difference. host: we are not talking about james comey today. we are talking about the impeachment. what did you gain yesterday? caller: i have to say with the other people calling in said, they just kept going over the same thing. they went over the same thing like 20 times. that whenever i watch any of the other networks, we watched c-span all the time, but when we go to the other
networks, they are saying what a great job the democrats did. host: one of the democrats presenting cases yesterday, or presenting what they see as evidence, jerry nadler, the judiciary chair, house impeachment manager, closing up his comments from yesterday with several key points. >> i will conclude by highlighting a few points in special emphasis as you apply the law of impeachment to president trump's misconduct. first, impeachment is not for petty offenses. the president's conduct must constitute a great and dangerous offense against the nation, offenses that threaten the constitution. second, impeachable offenses involve wrongdoing that reveal the president is a continuing threat if he is allowed to remain in office. in other words, we fully recognize that impeachment does
not exist for a mistake. it does not apply to ask that are unwise or unpopular. it is reserved for deliberate decisions by the president to embark on a course of conduct that betrays his oath of office and does violence to the constitution. when the president has engaged in such conduct and there is strong evidence he will do so again, when he has told us he will do so again, told us it is ok to invite interference from a foreign power into our next election, the case for removal is at its peak. this is certainly the case when he invites and attempts to compel a foreign government to help them subvert the integrity of our next election. there can be no greater threat to the republic. finally, high crimes and misdemeanors involve conduct that is recognizably wrong to a reasonable, honorable citizen. the framers adopted a standard for impeachment that will stand the test of time.
at the same time, the structure of the constitution implies that impeachable offenses should not come as a surprise impeachment -- surprise. impeachment is aimed at presidents who act above the law believe their own interests are more important than that of the nation, those who can -- ignore right and wrong in pursuit of their own gain. corruption,yal, here are each of the core offenses the framers feared most. abuse of power, betrayal of the national interest, and corruption of our elections qualify as great and dangerous offenses. president trump has made clear in word and deed he will persist in such conduct if he is not removed from power. he poses a continuing threat to our nation, to the integrity of our elections, to our democratic order. he must not remain in power one
moment longer. host: again, you can see that at c-span.org, watch for those proceedings as they take place at 1:00 this afternoon on c-span two. watch it on c-span.org or listen on our radio app. host: i want to follow up on bill in pennsylvania, the last caller. to fill in on one of the topics he was talking about, specifically the fisa warrants that were authorized against president trump -- then candidate trump's campaign associate, the justice department declaring two of four surveillance warrants to be invalid. the acknowledgment to the surveillance court is the latest fallout, cnn writes, from the scathing inspector general report -- and the applications
to get secret court warrants to eavesdrop on page. it means the department now believes a minimum, the surveillance should have ended after the second warrant expired. the court made no ruling on the other two warrants, but president trump and allies have russiazed the fbi's investigation and missteps with the fisa applications that declare page was illegal throughout. some reaction yesterday, one of president trump's defenders in the house, doug collins, ranking member of the judiciary committee, the republican from georgia saying -- this proves what republicans have been saying for years. there is no legal basis for spying on carter page during the 2016 election. congress must investigate the origins of the surveillance abuse and reform fisa to protect law-abiding citizens.
a former republican now independent justin amash -- here is an example of why i fought against unconstitutional surveillance but trump and obama, republican and democratic leaders have consistently opposed efforts to rein in the fisa process. we now have a chance for genuine reforms, but the administration continues to impose real limitations on that power. just some of the reaction outside the impeachment news yesterday. host: here is some of the reaction from the impeachment trial from our viewers. dean from missouri -- i would think both sides would embrace calling witnesses. first-hand witness account would be refreshing. larra says -- mine people the republican lawyers have not presented their side yet. steve saying -- the president is
the person being tried and can documents,sses and he is the person trying the case. -- republicans are only concerned with winning their next election. because he is not a career politician is not an excuse for the president. some of the comments for people -- from people off of twitter and facebook will get to eventually. fred in maryland, you are up next, cordova, maryland. caller: thank you for c-span and thank you for being the most objective media in the nation. you do a great job. host: appreciate you watching. caller: the democrats have a difficult task because it is almost possible to prove intent.
it may be true the president wanted to investigate biden for personal reasons, but it is perhaps even more likely the president thought the bidens were corrupt, and there is prima facie evidence that there is corruption regarding the bidens. it would be relevant and worthy of investigation. in terms of the president holding up documents or witnesses, he does have a clear right to invoke executive privilege. that goes back to washington. it is up to the courts to determine if there is a dispute between the legislative branch and executive branch, what can be surrendered. i think he is pretty strong and both of those areas. host: if that is the case and witnesses and documents are produced, are you worried about the length of this process playing out further than it has already? caller: my guess is under these
circumstances you would get an expedited judgment. it probably would not be as long as people fear, but it is an election year and you have the potentiality to run out of time. i think what the democrats should have done is ask for an expedited judgment when this was in the house. they might have had a better chance at getting this done, but to do it at this stage, it could be kind of late. host: ron in maryland, windsor hill, democrats line. hello. let me try one more time for ron. good morning. inwill go next to natalie saint augustine, florida. you are on, democrats line.
caller: yes. the last caller i have to say was reasonable and i thought it was an interesting thing that he talked about proving intent. i am afraid that not having witnesses and not being able to really actually get to the factual information will make it very difficult to have a fair trial. -- it is -- it ends up being an emotional thing, and all you have to do is listen to some of the people that call in. it turns it into truly a political process where people, senators are not facing their decisions -- basing their decisions on what they are hearing. they are basing it on their own political concerns.
there is just a great deal of manipulation going on here, and it truly offends me when i hear .hings like shifty schiff it seems like we are in an elementary school play yard, calling people names. i think it puts an unfortunate tone on what is a very serious situation. host: have you watched what the democrats have presented and will you watch what the white house team has to present? caller: i definitely will. i believe we have to listen with open minds. it is interesting that there is some difficulty in proving that., i realize without actually being able to have more witnesses and documentation, the democrats have done i got a job as they possibly can under the
circumstances -- done as good a job as they possibly can under the circumstances. what goes on is spun. when they do interviews, some of the senators afterwards like senator barajas go, he is , he'sg about -- barrasco talking about things that really democrats do not have confidence in the voters. it is this kind of spin back and forth. mostly i have to say on the part of the republicans, that takes it out of the realm of reasonable decision-making. host: that is natalie in florida. one of those people appearing before cameras talking about how the president's team will proceed, j secular, the president -- jay sekulow.
lindsey graham, alan dershowitz, the attorney general have made statements to the effect that abuse of power is impeachable. >> we have something different than what you are hearing up here. you are hearing video clips of testimony. we have lawyers that will be put forward that represent multiple schools of thought on what is and is not an impeachable offense. the actions of the president do not reach that level, no matter what school of thought you were on, and we are not afraid to put out both schools of thought because you have to meet basic, --damental, constitutional and they haven't. host: tomorrow, the white house team presents what they view as their evidence and the arguments they make, you can make that on -- see that on c-span2 tomorrow at 1:00.
the house impeachment managers, the final day of testimony you will hear from democrats as they wrap up their version of events, you can see that 1:00 on c-span2. you can watch at c-span.org and if you want to follow along during the day, do so on our c-span radio app. joining us from capitol hill, scott wong, senior staff writer with "the hill." can you talk about this final day, what is the strategy as far as the impeachment managers? guest: if yesterday was all about the first article of impeachment, then today is about the second article which is obstruction of congress. if you remember, the president and white house during the house put out a blanket statement for all its administration to say
that meant no witnesses from the administration were to cooperate with the democrats and adam schiff. that meant thousands of pages of documents that had been subpoenaed were not to be turned over. now, we did see nearly 20 administration officials, some from the white house, some from the state department, including yevonovitch and others after they were subpoenaed, but by and large the majority of folks who received subpoenas or requests to testify chose not to cooperate, and so that is what democrats will be pointing to today, people like nick mulvaney, acting chief of staff, the secretary of state, people who had firsthand knowledge of what was being discussed behind the scenes with the president in regards to withholding this $400 million in aid to ukraine, people that were in the room with the president and had this firsthand knowledge. so we will hear from democrats
today about what they believe constitutes obstruction of congress. host: do we suspect they're going to take up the total of the time they have, seven hours plus minutes? guest: i think so. this is the third and final day of the democrats' opening arguments. they have about seven hours and change remaining. we are expecting them to take that full time and try to make the best case they can, and then in the defense team's court and they will have three days starting saturday. they'll take a day off for the holy day on sunday, and then they'll resume monday and tuesday. so adam schiff and his team really will try to make the best case they can and try to wrap it up. you're hearing a lot from republicans about the reputation that this is too repetitious. we are hearing the same thing over and over. tim scott yesterday said
democrats think if they repeat it over and over, it will be true. but i think this is by design. i think adam schiff and his team are repeating some of these facts over and over to try to ingrain some of these facts in the minds of the senators but also the people watching at home, who maybe have not been paying total attention during the house investigation where we started hearing about some of these facts and learning the names of some of these characters involved in the ukraine plot. host: scott wong, you had a story combred a new piece of -- about a new piece of classified evidence being admitted into the inquiry. can you talk about it? guest: yes, this was a splill letter provided by jennifer williams, who was an aide to mike pence, a national security ade to mike pence. she was one of the individuals that we did see testify before the intelligence investigation. she was on the july 25 phone
call between president trump and the president of ukraine. she said she had a number of concerns that the call, the substance of the call, raised some alarms for her and made her feel uncomfortable. after she provided that testimony, she provided a supplemental letter, one-page letter, to capitol hill further explaining perhaps what she heard or maybe things that she remembered after the fact. we have not seen the contents of that letter, but earlier this week there was a deal between the two sides, democrats and republicans. they decided and agreed to submit that letter as part of the evidence for this trial. chief justice john roberts announced that earlier this week, that deal. so senators yesterday have been going down into the secure briefing room, we call it the skip, and they have been reviewing that letter. they're not discussing what the contents are because it's classified, but a number of
democrats have emerged from that skip room and said we believe this is significant. we believe that this letter should be declassified so that the american people can review this information for themselves. host: talk about the majority leader, the conversations he had having with republicans regarding witnesses and documents. guest: it is a question that's up in the air. all eyes are on these four republican senators, three mitt es, susan collins, romney, lisa murkowski, as well as a fourth retiring long-time senator from tennessee, lamar alexander, former member of leadership, somebody regarded as an institutionalist and so democrats will need all four of these individuals to side with them if they are to secure any witnesses in this trial. right now that question is still up in the air.
they're sort of being tussled over from both sides, both mcconnell trying to keep his troops in line, his republican troops in line. chuck schumer, the democratic leader, trying to lure those four members to his side so that they can call witnesses like lev parnas or nick mulvaney or john bolton. so that's why we are seeing so much attention paid to people like susan collins, who will be facing a tough election, re-election this november, and lisa murkowski. they're keeping things very close to the vest and are sort of dodging questions very delicately, but you will be hearing more and more about these four republicans and what their next move will be regarding witnesses, probably after the defense makes its final arguments. host: scott wong, we have heard several people and seen tweets and other information throughout the last couple of days about the interest level of senators
and if they're actually in the well or watching along as this case is being made. what can you tell us? guest: i was in the senate chamber yesterday, observing as many senators as i could. for the most part, senators are attentive. occasionally you will see senators step away, move to the back of the room to stretch their legs. i saw senator portman stand up behind his desk and stretch his legs. occasionally you'll see people go to the cloakroom to take a break, perhaps get a soda or some candy. so, you know, we did hear senators reading books. richard burr, as you pointed out, had passed out fidget spinners to his 52 republican colleagues as a way to pass time . some members, including rand paul, are making sketches of the capitol to pass the time.
but by and large, you are seeing senators pay very close attention. of course, when the republicans run to the microphones during the break, they are pointing out a lot of this seems repetitive and tedious and that they feel like the democrats have made their point and it's time to move on. but i think for the most part, people are taking this very seriously. host: finally, as far as reporter access, are you or people representing you there making a continued case for more access in this process? guest: yeah, we at the hill have a representative, alex bolton, on one of the standing committees who is part of the group that is continuing to make the case. but i think at this point, we are in the thick of things. there appears to be -- you know, there appears to be people trying to work things out between the press and the capitol police, who are doing their job of ensuring that nobody gets trampled or tripped up. the senators and the house
managers who are doing their business. and so it isn't perfect, but i think it's working for the moment. it is a little more restrictions than we are used to, but for now there appears to be a truce and everyone seems to be focused on the work that they need to get done. host: scott wong is a senior staff writer for "the hill." you can find his work at thehill.com. thank you for your time today. guest: thank you. host: we have less than an hour to go on this program. we will take your calls. the final day for house democrats to present their case with the white house and the white house team making their case -- starting their case tomorrow. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8002 for independents. mark in pennsylvania, republican line, hi. caller: good morning, pedro. i just want to talk about the fundamental unfairness of this whole thing.
it's so unfair to everybody, including american citizens, for having to endure this. everybody saw a real trial on tv at one point or another. i have been involved in many trials and courtrooms. none of this has anything to do with a trial. there is no constitutional rights being given to the president. he can't face his accusers. the witnesses they want in the house have not been cross-examined by counsel for the president. everything about this is unconstitutional. it started off with the vote when they put their hands up and said i can be a fair and impartial jury, which they all perjured themselves. they all should be charged with perjury. they make the rules up to break the constitution and violate it. we are listening to 24 hours of nothing but hearsay, conjecture, i will make up the story, you are going to have to listen to it for 24 hours and nobody can object. nobody can say the facts are already in evidence. nobody can say it's false. it's unbelievable. i don't know what this is for. i think the founding fathers made a horrible mistake by
putting this in the constitution. it's never worked for the 250 years we have tried it. it's always been partisan and always been a horrible thing that's tore our country to pieces. host: ok. we will hear from lynn in arizona, independent line. guest: hi, i have to disagree with mark. i think it's important that the american people know what's going on. the people that testified -- when there is hearsay and don't have witnesses or documents to back it up, that's when people can run around in the unknown, just not really knowing what the facts are. that's why it's so important to have that. we did have testimony from people inside the trump administration. these aren't democrats. these are people that they attempted to halt their testimony in the house impeachment by trying to exert some type of privilege or whatever. these are people that stood up
and said i am going to testify anyway. they're people within his administration that are stepping up and saying what they saw that was wrong. the fact that people just don't want to see the facts says to me that unfortunately we are in a very, very divided country, where facts don't matter. host: ok, that's lynn in arizona. bruce in california, democrats line. caller: i want to disagree with mark because he is ignorant and the lady that you were talking to was absolutely correct. is there anything -- just like to ask the question, is there anything like mayors and governors, could they put like -- tell senators, you know, to -- witnesses and host: ok, bruce, good question. we will see if there is anything that leads to the influence that mayors and governors may have on
what senators say. >> to bruce's question, i should note that the u.s. conference of mayors winter meeting is taking place in washington, d.c. this week, and president trump is hosting the mayors this afternoon at the white house. they'll be in the east room of the white house. that's what's on the president's official schedule, although as we noted the president keynoting today, appearing at the march for life, 47th annual march for life, that happening at noon today. those are the two main events on president trump's official schedule today. when it comes to the senate's schedule, the impeachment trial of president trump resuming at 1:00 p.m. eastern. there is no legislative session prior to the start of the proceedings today in the senate, as there have been in recent days, though senators are set to appear today and all senators a
briefing regarding the outbreak of the virus originating in china. this is the hill newspaper story about it. that briefing expected to happen just about an hour and 15 minutes from now at 10:30. the hill newspaper noting that the administration briefing will be jointly hosted by the senate health committee and foreign relations committee. more from that story yesterday. the ranking member of the east asia subcommittee of the foreign relations committee, ed markey, asked for answers on the response by the health and human services and state department, their response to the virus. the story also noting that the state department, centers for disease control and prevention issued a travel advisory to china, urging people to seek medical help if they feel sick after traveling to the affected areas. the world health organization on thursday declined to declare a public health emergency over the virus but said that it recognizes the potential of the danger if the virus continues to
spread. one tweet on this front from the chairman of the senate health lamar ee, that's alexander, somebody closely watched when it comes to his position on the impeachment trial. this was his tweet yesterday. senators will have the opportunity to hear directly from senior government health officials regarding what we know about the virus so far and how our country is prepared to respond as the situation develops. host: from st. louis missouri, democrats line. caller: good morning, pedro. i would like to say that it seems like the republicans and democrats are fighting two different wars. he democrats are saying they made their case of wrongdoing of the president, but the senate issue seems to be should the president be removed from office? i don't know how they're going resolve that except the
numbers -- the senate has the numbers to keep the president from being removed. that seems like it is a weakness of our political system, the partisan nature. i think of myself. i've always voted democrat since president carter. i don't know how we could get beyond that. host: do you think the president should be removed? caller: i guess the short answer would be yes. what tips the scale is his belligerent speech. he makes fun of everything that he doesn't agree with. i think that's unsportsmanlike conduct. host: but what is being decided upon in the impeachment trial, based on that do you think the president should be removed? caller: i can't say. i haven't followed closely enough. the short answer is still yes. i would take that chance. host: why is that? caller: because if it was just
our country, that's one thing, but we are dealing -- the united states is supposed to be the leader of the world, and it just does not present a good picture to the world to have a president that makes fun of people, that's broken the law. host: ok. let's hear from new york, republican line. ron is next. caller: good morning, how are you today? host: fine, thanks. caller: i believe the topic is obstruction. i would like to voice my opinion on that. the president being accused of not providing information and they're calling it obstruction. but the president may not be above the law but he is not below the law either. we have a bill of rights and a constitution in this country that we are presumed innocent until proven guilty. right now the democrats totally
bear that burden of proving this guilt, which in my opinion they haven't so far. i am hearing a lot of hearsay and conjecture. it's like a loop. it's over and over trying to bury these opinions of the democrats into the minds of the american people. host: when you hear an executive privilege argument being presented as far as keeping of information, what do you think of that? caller: i believe it's beyond just a privilege of the president. i believe it's a right. the democrats went into this saying they had absolute evidence. to me they don't. i haven't seen anything other than conjecture and speculation. it's all interpretation. a couple words the president says out of the entire conversation are focused on -- they can be twisted in any way to suit the purpose of the
prosecution, the democratic committee. i don't see why the president should have to make their case. host: ok. that's ron in new york. let's go to steve in south carolina, independent line. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: one thing that i think is getting lost in all of this -- i have been watching it very closely, every chance i've had, i've watched it. my senator, one of my senators, tim scott, makes the statement that if you repeat it enough it will be true. well, he's got to understand that not everybody is watching it all day long. there are a lot of people working. they don't have a chance to stop and watch it like i've had here. and if you are watching only fox, you are not going to see it because they're not playing it. but i am curious if they're going to play the republican side. here is my point. the two leaders of this country
-- you have one leader that got booted out basically and you had another leader who just came in. the second leader that came in was a surprise to our leader, to trump. it messed up his whole program when this guy got elected. host: what program is that? caller: they were already working this deal with -- trying to look into the -- well, they were trying to get him to announce a biden investigation. they had it pretty much worked out with the leader that was -- he was voted out. so when the new one came in, it threw a kink in their whole plan. what happened was, trump was not going to accept the fact that this man would not go along with the plan. he just kept going. they had it worked out until this new guy came in. the new guy messed up the whole
shooting match for everybody. i just find it amazing that nobody has picked up on that. host: ok. steven in south carolina, let's hear from louis in north carolina, democrats line. caller: good morning, c-span. the gentleman was totally on point. trump got caught and i know a lot of people don't want to admit that, that this man is a scandal -- scandalous. but we have a man in the office that's really not caring about the institution. if they can -- constitution. if they can rip up the constitution, we all in a mess. i love the democrat party, what they're doing, how they're presenting themselves. there has to be repetition because a lot of people don't he sit there all day. the ones who sit there all day and look at it, they still can't get the truth. they still can't see the truth. i don't listen to when you get a republican that calls on the democrat line, saying i am going
republican from here on out. that's ludicrous. host: will you listen to the white house team tomorrow as they push back against the evidence brought forth by the democrats? caller: most deaf netly because you can't -- definitely because you can't look at it one side. right now the democrats are showing evidence that they are in the right direction. the question is will the republicans come up with anything for themselves or will they run the same tape we are running? that will show even the president won't give them evidence to support his allegations. so i am looking forward to seeing that. i guarantee you, it won't last no more than eight hours. host: what if some of those apes give context to the evidence that the white house -- will that change your opinion of what was said? caller: no, if you look at it, they never would have gave the articles of impeachment if they
had enough evidence even when it was questioning because the republicans had the opportunity to question them as well. if came to the point that they had legitimate questions and answers came back to them, of course, he wouldn't have voted for articles of impeachment. the evidence proved -- look, i had a civil case going at one point. the preponderance of evidence is where you bring your case. the one who had the most evidence killed that skill, that's the one who will win. trump don't have no evidence to present because if they did, they would prove they are guilty. host: ok. that's louis in north carolina. we will continue on with your calls on the impeachment trial in the senate. but first we will go back to john. >> i want to note sad news in the world of journalism. yesterday former newscaster jim lehrer died at 85 in his home. his death announced yesterday by pbs.
journalisma giant in dedicated to delivering the news died peacefully in his sleep thursday at the age of 85. if you want to read more, pbs.org. did want to show viewers from our friends at american history tv, an event jim spoke at back in 2017. in that event he was talking about the importance of public broadcasting when it came to the watergate hearings in 1973 and 1974. this is about a minute and a half long. [video clip] >> up to that point, the stations and the public were divided over whether they even needed any more news and public affairs on television beyond what was already there on commercial television. the nixon administration didn't think there was a need for any more news on public
broadcasting, but the watergate hearings changed everything. the reason it changed was because there are several individuals who had the courage to make some really tough decisions. one of them was not necessarily to broadcast from gavel to gavel of the many of the stations would not broadcasting it live because they had educational tv on during the daytime. but somebody -- i was part of the mix of is somebodies. o we repeat them at night. that was a big deal. it was a big decision. the people running pbs were nervous about it, so they said let's poll the stations. we did poll the stations, but we polled the stations in a very clever way. we polled the stations with a question that was kind of phrased in such a way, do you want to be patriotic or do you want to be a jerk?
we still barely won. host: you can see that an our website, c-span.org, if you want to see more of that conversation . we will go to gary, kentucky, republican line. caller: they keep saying it's a sham investigation by the senate. it states in the constitution that the senate shall be the final judge on impeachment because they're better qualified. i don't know what the democrats -- they should lay out their case and let it lay and let's get on with this thing. i think the nation is suffering from this. nobody wins in this, and maybe they ought to try -- what do we call it, plea bargain, to where we get back to the work of americans instead of bickering back and forth.
host: ok, gary in kentucky. marilyn is up next from colorado, independent line. caller: yes. i have some observations of what i have watched on the impeachment hearings in both the house and the senate. first, i look at zelinsky and i think of his situation. he is being pressured by two powerful countries, russia fighting his borders, and then his supposed ally withholding military aid. i can honestly say he was right in saying he was not pushed, but he was being pushed and it was only because of trump being didn'tut in time that he go on and say he was going to handle the investigation. the other thing, as far as the trial is concerned, one outcome is a given. trump will never -- because trump takes everything personally.
zelinsky will never be invited to the white house. two, i respect the honestly, strength and integrity of the witnesses who came before the house, and i hold in contempt the individuals that ignored house subpoenas. host: from sean in north carolina, line for democrats. caller: yes, thanks for taking my call, pedro. the president of the united states could have put a lot of this stuff to rest when robert mueller investigated him. he never came forward then. he is the president of the united states. he could have done the same thing and put this to rest. come speak in front of the american people, mr. president. if you've done nothing wrong, we the people of the united states of america want to hear you questioned and you answer the questions. bill clinton did. host: ok, that's sean in north carolina. one of the people speaking before cameras yesterday was
during a break in the senate proceedings was the republican senator from missouri. again the topic of why hunter biden and the former vice president, joe biden, should appear as witnesses in the senate trial. >> i thought the arguments took a very interesting turn at about the 2:13 mark. the house managers went into a very detailed discussion of the burisma-biden situation, which i think will prove to have been a major error. they went on for quite some time and made a series of statements about the state of an investigation into burisma. i think a number of those statements are factually tenuous to put it mildly and they also showed how central the bidens are to their argument, really, really central, and how important it is for them that hunter biden not be involved in any kind of corruption with burisma. they had the strange effect of arguing in the midst of their
statement on the floor, first of all, that he was dismissed because he wasn't investigating burisma enough, that he needed to be more vigorously investigated. 20 minutes later, she argued president trump was wrong because nobody thought there was corruption. you can't have it both ways. either burisma was a source of corruption and needed to be veshted or it wasn't. but the house managers have worked themselves in the awkward position of trying to have it both ways, saying there was a problem but nobody should be investigating it now and later. that i think is very problematic for them. i am interested to see how they're going to try to get out of it. i think some of the statements they made about the factual details of what was going on will be challenged. i was very surprised they chose to make hunter biden so central to this presentation and to insist over and over again that
they knew for a fact about the details, what was going on with burisma and biden. i will say for my part, if we are going to call witnesses, it's clear we must call hunter biden and probably joe biden based on the house manager's presentation today. i think we will probably need toe hear from the former vice president, if we call witnesses. host: that's senator josh hawley yesterday on his need for witnesses. contrast that with the house impeachment manager yesterday taking her presentation time to talk about what she described as a smear campaign not only against the bidens but u.s. ambassador to ukraine. >> in late march and throughout april 2019, the smear campaign against the bidens and against the ambassador entered a more public phase through a series of opinion pieces published in the
hill. the public airing of these allegations was orchestrated by giuliani, parnas, and we know from records that he played an important role in getting derogatory information from the deputy to john solomon who wrote the opinion pieces in "the hill." according to the articles, ukrainian officials falsely claimed to have evidence of wrongdoing about the following, one, that vice president biden's fforts in 2015 to remove chulkin, to hunter biden's role as a burisma board member, three, ukrainian interference in the 2016 election in favor of hillary clinton, four, the misappropriation and transfer of ukrainian funds abroad. this is what president trump wanted from the ukranians, the
same information mr. giuliani and his agents were scheming up with ukraine to hurt biden and in exchange to have ambassador yevanovich removed. ow, mr. giuliani was very open about this, and here is a clip worth watching. [video clip] let me tell you my interest in that. i got information about three or four months ago that a lot of the explanation for how this whole phony investigation started will be in the ukraine, that there are a group of people working to help hillary clinton and were colluding really with the clinton campaign and it stems around the ambassador and the embassy being used for political purposes. so i began getting some people that were coming forward and telling me about that. all of a sudden they revealed this story about burisma and biden's son. >> mr. giuliani got laughed at
n fox news for advancing the conspiracy theory, but the clip shows that he had been making an effort to get derogatory information from the ukranians on behalf of his client, president trump. host: all that available if you want to go back and see what took place, if you have time to do so, watch all or portions of it, you can do so when you go to our website. democrats line from pennsylvania. this is alex. caller: hi, thank you. i am so glad that you give regular people a chance to speak. s far as the impeachment goes, to think that donald trump couldn't do this and the way that republicans try to block voting everywhere in the country , it goes hand in hand. that part is not that
far-fetched. the main thing i wanted to say that's a little off the track is i am so glad my kids are grown because i could not imagine raising my kids and saying that's the man i want you to be like. it's just -- i can't believe .eople can call in and say that raising kids, it's sad. thank you very much. host: javier from texas, republican line. go ahead. caller: yes, thank you very much. i am a veteran from the united states army, and disabled vet, and i voted for this president, sir. i respect him and what he is trying to do. hey i do not agree with what is doing in some of the things he does and says. he keeps putting his foot in his mouth and then has to come back and retract his -- what he said.
host: when it comes to the impeachment hearings, do you agree with the case being made by democrats? caller: yes, sir. i do. unfortunately, i wish that the republicans -- my republican friends in the senate, i wish that they would be more open-minded. they seem to be closing their minds to what is going on. they don't want to admit or done want to accept the facts that the democrats are showing. host: ok. that's javier in texas. about 25 minutes until we are complete with this program today. we will take your calls up until then. 202-748-8000, democrats. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. we will first go to john mccardell. >> after four days of the impeachment trial on the senate floor we are starting to see more and more members repackage
the action that's taken place on the senate floor into neatly cut videos for their social media followers. just want to play two examples of that. the first one comes from the house judiciary committee democrat. this is about a minute of the nearly four-minute video that they put together yesterday. [video clip] >> our men and women in uniform deserve better. our friends and allies deserve better. the american people deserve etter. the truth is going to come out.
the truth has already come out. the only question is, do you want to hear it now? >> that from the democrats on the house judiciary committee. one more video for you, this put out yesterday by senator ted cruz. >> nancy pelosi's circus is done. >> the senate will conduct a fair trial. since election day, they've been saying we are going to impeach the president. >> i will fight every day until he is impeached. >> the president's misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box. we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won.
>> optimistic about the future, a future that will not have donald trump in the white house one way or another. >> you are all aware that the next election is looming. we cannot wait for the election to address the present crisis. >> democrats are mad at the american people for electing president trump. >> the outcome of this is the president will be acquitted. host: next up is rachel from buffalo, new york, republican line. caller: yes, good morning. i appreciate your taking the time to take my phone call. the reason that i am calling is because for one thing, i have been watching these hearings and quite frankly, as they've said from the outset, even before the election, they've been wanting mr. trump out of office before he even got in quite frankly because he -- they cannot accept
the fact that the results. they just -- i don't know. i am just very frustrated because, i mean, i think this is waste -- wasting a lot of time and -- when they could be doing something more constructive like really doing the business of the american people. and i hope people are going to remember this come the 2020 elections. i know i am. host: illinois is next, independent line, sergio, go ahead. caller: thanks to c-span. i have a couple words. i have not heard this morning about polls. the polls last three or four days have the american people, 73%, 80% fox news had yesterday, more want to hear witnesses and they want to see documents.
i have not heard anything about all about polls today on c-span, which is very important because this is what's going on. it's not about republicans or democrats. it's about impeaching the president of the united states, who is supposed to be the president for all people. i am an american serviceman, retired. i want to let that be known. host: ok, we will see if maybe there is any new poll information out there that talks about the sentiment of the american public to this point. we will see if we can produce that before the end of the program. san diego, democrats line, elizabeth, hi. caller: hi, c-span, good morning. i just want to say that i think that the democrats are doing a brilliant job. they're really bringing information to the american people that is important for them to see, and as evidenced by a lot of your callers, many americans live in a knocks news bubble. that's why the democrats are
repeating the information. people are tuning in at different times of the day. not everybody can watch it -- host: what has been the democrats' strongest case, do you think, or strongest piece of evidence? caller: i think it's clearly the democrats are showing that the president is not denying what happened here. i mean, it's very clear. you know, the president has said what he said, and he said it publicly. host: but is that -- was that a new thing leading up to what we have heard this week? caller: well, it's not new, but it's impeachable. along with the obstruction of congress, it's very condemning. going back to the thing about the bubble, though, i see this with bookends. the opening statement by the president's attorneys had two blatant lies in there. they stated that the republicans were not invited to those early
the basement in and that is not true. that shows you what the republican bubble is like. for the president's own attorneys to make two blatant lies in their opening statement shows you what we are dealing with. host: ok. let's hear from david in new york, republican line. go ahead. caller: hi, good morning. i feel as an american citizen that the democratic party has not made a case even in the house to impeach. that's why it was done very quickly. when they come to the senate, they kind of are choking. they don't really present a case of obstruction of congress and i against trumpcase for committing any crime of
holding back the money because ukraine is corrupt. did you watch the -- did you watch the proceedings over the last couple of days on what the democrats produced? yeah, and it's the same story over and over and a lot of their clips are lies and they have them out of context. everything that they're trying to produce as evidence by calling more witnesses at this point is like looking for evidence instead of having the evidence. who has an investigative trial? the trial was supposed to be both sides had all of their ducks in order. they have all of their evidence. host: in case of witnesses, these would be the people closest to the president. if they were to come to pass. do you think they need to be heard from? caller: i think anybody that has any information that is
pertaining to the transcripts of what the president said, anybody that was on the phone that listened and heard the conversation, any people that were in the embassy laundering money that he wanted fired, any people that are involved in crimes that he wants out of there, i think this is all legitimate that any president should do. why is he giving our money to people that are corrupt and he can't really find out where this money is going? host: that's david in new york. from kentucky, independent line, noah is next. caller: hello. this is all very interesting, but you need to consider one other thing. i think the impeachment is a false flag. i will tell you why. look at how many states right now are in turmoil, like irginia, with all the gun laws
going to democrat statehouses and democratic governors. you got marco rubio in florida pushing a federal red flag law. host: we are back to impeachment, though. why do you think it's a false flag? those are two unrelated things as far as what is going on impeachment side and what you are speaking about. caller: it's a false flag because they have distracted the average joe like me from what's going on in my statehouse in kentucky. they're pushing the same laws through kentucky, through a democratic congress, and no one is paying attention. host: you are paying attention. respectfully, you are paying attention to it because you brought it forward in the call. if that's the case -- caller: it's why i brought it forward, because i talked to my friends, they didn't have the slightest idea. host: ok.
that's noah in kentucky. previous caller asked about polls. here ison mccardell. >> pedro, we do try to give the callers what they ask for. the caller said he hadn't heard much about polls. i would point the caller to 538.com. they're keeping track of all the atest polling when it comes to impeachment and compiling an average of polls. one of the latest polls that they brought into their average, the economist poll from january 19 through 21, 43% in that poll supporting removal of president trump, 42% opposing. the average of all the polls according to 538 found that 48.1% of americans support removing president trump. that includes 83.9% of democrats but only 8.4% of republicans. support among independents is exactly divided between the two.
furthermore they write the numbers have barely budged since the house the voted to impeach trump in december, implying each side's political maneuvering in recent weeks haven't affected public opinion much. one other poll i was able to find, this from forbes, talking about a new poll that looked at how young people feel about the impeachment and removal of president trump. an overwhelming majority of young voters, forbes writes, 58.6% believe president trump abused his power and obstructed congress. the two charges he is facing in the impeachment trial, only 32.8% of those young people urveyed voters under 30, those 32.8% believe president trump is not guilty. the remaining 8.7% were not sure. again that poll of just young people under 30, forbes.com the place i point you to for that
polling. host: james in new york, democrats line. go ahead. you're next up. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to say, there is a lot of talk of obstruction and me watching the trial proceedings even in the house. to me the democrats have in fact laid out serious roadmaps about obstruction. now we are in the senate with the impeachment situation going on. yet the democrats are still talking about obstruction, what the president is doing with obstruction and the republicans are acting like i don't see any obstruction. i mean, it's bizarre. thank you for taking my call. host: kevin is next from richmond, california, republican line. caller: good morning. i wanted to pick up on what the caller just said. just in the last 48 hours, we see two clear examples of the president continuing to obstruct. we were told that the president's tweets are to be
treated as presidential statements. he made a statement yesterday via tweet that if the senators, rather threatening, if the senators call witnesses, he will take them to court. he pretty much threatened them. maybe john could find that tweet. and the day before that, he basically said i have all the documents, they don't. this man is doing this in front of our face. i think because it's so blatant people don't see it as being nefarious. host: but the case being made currently by democrats, what do you think of the eff and is it impeachable in your mind? caller: i followed the house. i read the mueller report, one of the few people. i think so far their case is rather solid. and we know in the house, in the house, the president's side did not mount a defense. they've never mounted a defense. i cannot wait until tomorrow to actually see what their defense is. host: during the impeachment hearings, republicans had a chance to question and in a
sense mounted a defense there. caller: right and when they questioned, they didn't stay on point. they talked about all kinds of things. go back and look. they did not mount a consistent defense. i am very excited to see what they come up with tomorrow. i have a feeling they're going to say he did it, it's knots impeachable. host: tomorrow the white house team starts making their case in the senate. you can see that starting at 1:00 on c-span2. today you can see the final day of democrats finishing up their presentation. they're expected to take up the seven hours and 32 minutes, i think it is. they're expected to take up all that time to make their case finally today and then from there we will go on to the questioning by senators themselves and to the idea of documents and witnesses after that. from pennsylvania, independent
line, bill, go ahead. caller: good morning, pedro. i just had two quick points to make. first of all, the constitution has a stacked jury against it in this impeachment trial. what i am concerned about is the future abuse of power. i really don't want to hear any republicans complaining about any democratic president doing similar actions in the future if they acquit trump this round. the second thing is i have been trying to find out -- trump is bringing on these high profile defense lawyers. anyway, my question is who is paying for starr and -- you know, the other guy, i am sorry. host: alan dershowitz. caller: how are they being paid for? i don't see the democrats
bringing on high-profile prosecution attorneys. host: that's because the house members themselves make the case. that's why you don't have outside counsel as far as that side. because the house democrats themselves are making the case. caller: who is paying for dershowitz and starr? host: that's a good question. maybe we can find out for you before we are done today, bill. caller: i just hope we are not going down a rabbit hole we will regret later. host: that's bill in pennsylvania. sal in staten island, democrats line. hi. caller: thank you for taking my call. i hope you give me the opportunity to finish my thoughts. ok, number one, i can't believe the things i am hearing from people, ok? the democrats -- i am a democrat -- have every play in the book that they use. they know that the president must exercise executive order --
privilege. it's not because he is protecting himself. it's because he is protecting the presidency, future presidency. he must exercise executive order. if he was a regular citizen, i am sure he would want bolton and these people to testify, ok, but he is being told to exercise executive order because he is protecting the presidency. what the democrats are doing the plain and simple, appearance in the 2020 elections, this guy has been attacked from day one. from day one, the american people, they heard nine minutes of what he has accomplished with the economy. and 900 minutes on abc, nbc and cbs of negative coverage just in the last day. host: let's go to george, florida, republican line. caller: yes, good morning.
on the issues people are talking about, number one, the people who testified were asked by republicans in the house if trump's actions rose to the level of impeachment. they said no. these were democrat witnesses. that brings up why trump stopped being supercooperative. he was supercooperative providing i think a million pages of information to schiff and his crew. they wouldn't let trump's witnesses testify. that's on the item for the day, whether it's debating today and on the money, etc., ukraine, he had 40 days to give the money to ukraine after it was investigated to see if it was corrupted money. he did that because both
republicans and even joe biden said they're corrupt. we need to make sure this money is not going to the wrong place. as far as i am concerned, that's the way it should happen. host: ray is next, independent line, hi. caller: hi. i wanted to say i don't know that anything would change the minds of your callers or the senate. it doesn't seem possible. it's almost like a failure of education. it doesn't prove a businessman can ever run the government. it's too big for all of them. it's really out of control. i don't -- it's hard to have any hope for anything watching these senators cower and are afraid to stand up for the job. we need another john mccain obviously, someone with some backbone. host: ok. william is next in massachusetts, independent line.
caller: hi, pedro. yeah, but neither side has shown from the past few months -- what about hundreds of billions ukraine spends on defense and have they shown that they tried to spend money and were told no? has that ever happened? host: i don't know the answer to that. caller: the other point is, when trump said he wanted investigations into the bidens and they said it would hurt biden but that biden did nothing wrong, was it asking for investigations into the bidens and ukraine said nothing was wrong would help biden? host: don't know the answer either, but i know this. here is john. >> trying to get in all of our homework before the end of our program. a couple questions from viewers. one on president trump's private lawyers, whether they cost
taxpayer money. this story going back to 2017, a different lawyer, but the president's private lawyers are paid by the president himself. but the viewer specifically brought up alan dershowitz. this story from the hill newspaper from after he was named to president trump ace defense team noting that dershowitz has said he is not taking money for his work on president trump's legal team. and then the other viewer was asking about president trump's tweets yesterday, when it came to witnesses and his concerns about whether republicans go along with that. a good place to search for tweets by the president and what he has said on different topics is trump's twitter archives. it allows you to put in a search term and it goes through all of the president's tweets, whether they're tweets or retweets. the two tweets from the president yesterday in which he
specifically mentions witnesses are these two tweets. president trump saying the democrats don't want a witness trade because shifty schiff, the bidens, fake whistleblower and his lawyer, second whistleblower who vanished after i released the transcripts, so-called informer and many or democrat disasters would be a big problem for them. this is the other tweet by the president mentioning witnesses. the democrat house would not give us a lawyer and not one witness, but now the man that the republican senate produced witnesses that the house never sought or even asked for, they had their chance but pretended to rush. most unfair and corrupt hearing in congressional history. those are the two yesterday from the president specifically mentioning witnesses. host: let's hear from tony in new jersey, republican line. caller: good morning. i have been watching everything from the house and it's very hard to either really get to the democrats because of all their
smirks and everything like that, it's like oh, we accomplished this and then they sit on this for so long, it's just unbelievable. i mean, it's like ok, we did this. they've been trying to build from day one and just -- it's just really pathetic. that's really what i wanted to say. thank you for your time. host: sue is in michigan, democrats line. caller: yeah, i can't really understand how these republicans can sit there and act like schiff gave no evidence to the facts that trump did this. i mean, he said he was going to give him the money if he did the investigation on biden. he wasn't even talking about corruption or anything. he just wanted him to go on tv and say he was investigating him. he didn't even say he really wanted them to investigate. the fact that trump actually betrayed our kurds, kurds that
caught over 10,000 isis terrorists and led our u.s. troops and u.s. intelligence right to baghdad, the leader of -- infiltratedtrated the compound, and trump said that those kurds were not all of that big of a deal. host: we have to leave it there because we are out of time. 1:00 on c-span2 if you want to see the final day of testimony and evidence being brought forth and our0 on c-span.org radio app. thank you for watching, we will take your calls on this issue tomorrow morning starting at 7:00. we will see you then. ♪