tv Washington Journal 06032018 CSPAN June 3, 2018 7:00am-8:47am EDT
impeachment. then former white house mitigations director anthony scaramucci joins us to discuss the trump presidency and other political news of the day. host: good morning. it is a back to work week for congress. the house scheduled to take up at least three spending bills. the senate voting on a number of those 147 federal judicial vacancies. immigration may be the center of the debate in both chambers, including the possibility of a discharge petition in the house. if enough democrats and republicans signed that bill, it would make it to the floor. a busy summer schedule, including possibly shortened august recess. welcome to c-span's "washington
journal." we want to begin with your comments on the president's twitter account. the phone lines are open, and your thoughts on how the president uses twitter. here are the phone numbers. (202) 748-8001 hour line for republicans. (202) 748-8000 our line for democrats. if you are independent, (202) 748-8002. we will read your tweets @cspa nwj. lots of you have commented on our facebook page, so far more than 50. we expect more in the next 45 minutes. welcome to the "washington journal." tweets damaging the nation based on a new full released this week. the president's twitter feed, which has more than 52 million
followers, is his primary communications tool. votersan three in five think the president's use of twitter is a bad thing. only 20% called his tweeting a good thing. more than three and four take issue with the frequency of his habit. twitter toop uses much. even according to republicans according to this poll, a majority say trump tweets too much. tell us what you think about the use of twitter by the president and whether it is a good thing or bad thing by him. when he was elected, he sat down with leslie stahl on 60 minutes. she asked him about twitter. [video clip] >> i am going to be very restrained if i use it at all.
it is a modern form of communication. there is nothing that should be ashamed of. it is where it is at. i do believe the fact that i have such power in terms of numbers on facebook, twitter, instagram, i think it helped me win all of these races where they are spending much more money than i spent. i won. i think social media has more power than the money they spent. host: that was president trump courtesy of cbs news and 60 minutes. this new poll is available at politico.com. let's get to your phone calls. bob is joining us from wisconsin, republican line. do you agree or disagree? guest: -- caller: i disagree. firstesident is the president that actually wants to communicate with the people.
oversight,ets little i really like it. i have never seen a president do anything like this. i think it is great. anybody who says different is a democrat. that is all. host: will go to the democrats line. henry in new york city, good morning. caller: good morning. i'm a little harsher than the previous caller. i believe the president does not know what he is done. i think he changes his mind all day long. he uses twitter as a form of communication that confuses people. he is confusing world leaders. that is not very healthy for the united states. host: thank you. let's go to randy in wisconsin on the republic online. line. what do you think about the president's use of twitter? caller: i like it.
i think it is great. he bypasses the mainstream media, which only tells lies about him. the media can tell you anything they want. it is usually the media that is telling you the lies. i hope he keeps it up. the mainstream media, just listen to how they badger him. they cannot control him. that is something the media always used to do with the other presidents. host: let's go to james next from california. independent line. good morning. caller: i am fine. that last caller, i have to give the media some credit because the president is the biggest liar through his twitter account. i think the national security risk, i don't think the president should have that kind of profile.
who knows how it is being interpreted by the political machine that runs around the globe? i don't think the president should be on that twitter account. i think it diminishes the stature of his office. host: thank you for the call. let's drill down on the numbers. this survey was released late last week by politico. does the president tweet too much? 72% of responders said yes. 13% said about the right amount, 12% said no opinion, and 2% said the president should tweet more. page, a lot of different opinions, including this from rick, who says love it. skip the fake media.
ryan says, keep it rolling. when he pleads the fifth, we will always have is beautiful, self-incriminating tweets. sebastian says, utter disaster. our nation prestige may never fully recover. dan says it is a tool for middle school. awesome,ays entertaining, direct from the source, raw. you can join in on the conversation at facebook.com/cspan. from go to ken joining us jackson, mississippi. caller: hello. thank you for c-span. host: you are on the air. go ahead. caller: yes. i would like to say the president should not be tweeting his thoughts. no way to -- there's
saying onw, what he's this stuffweets all at 3:00, 4:00 in the morning, i'm wondering if he is stable. host: thank you. il joining us bas from ohio as we take a look at politico.from good morning. welcome to the conversation. caller: thank you. i think this president has awakened the american public in a way no president has before. he communicates directly with them. first of all, the former democratic party has become so decadent that it cannot even stand its own lies anymore. this president is waking america
up whether they like to be awakened or not. the fact that he has accomplished as much as he has come if he had not been tweeting, the news media would have never gotten this information out. i think he is a catalyst that and manyned america, americans do not want to be awakened to the truth. he does awaken us to the truth tweets oru like his not. i think that is the most important thing he has done in addition to all the things he has accomplished, which is undeniable. they do deny it on the other side. there are a lot of people that do not like this country. that is so evident. when there is a party that is willing to put up with 60 million babies that have been killed. that is the party of death. host: thank you for the call. a couple of tweets.
gary says, i think it is fantastic. i like information directly from the source. i like to sort it by truth. saying, absolutely refreshing. most wall themselves in the white house. trump wants everyone to know what's on his mind, dementia and all. jody says, when the president can move the stock market with a single tweet, you tell me if having that much power is a good thing. no one person should have all that power. this is the headline, majority of voters say the president tweets too much. more details, 62% say the constant use of twitter is a bad thing. 20% say it is a good thing. 18%, no answer. texas,democrats line in good morning. caller: i want to say the
president does tweet too much. sometimes your thoughts should be kept to yourself and not be put on social media. him being the president, he acts more like a little child sometimes than a grown 77-year-old man. said alle callers has he has done since being president, what has he done? infrastructure, what has he done? minimum wage has not gone up. there are a lot of things he has not done that he said he would do. he has not brought the country together. the country is more divided than ever. i am a human being and i am an american. i see the truth is truth at the age that i am. is not at trump leader. he is an actor and a
manipulator. thank you. host: this is from helen who media,es, skip the fake the democratic party that damages the nation with their obstruct, and they do everything to tear him and the u.s. down. he has no choice. bobby says, president trump can tweet just like everyone else. saying tweeting hurts the u.s. standing in the world. 13% say no impact. this question ll fromn a political pool last week. in wisconsin, republican line, keith. caller: good morning. we hope you are well. host: i am.
thank you. caller: the president is reaching over 40 million people with a message directly to them without the filter of the mainstream media that is out to destroy. host: he has 52 million followers. caller: it has even gone up as the last time i looked. 52 million people are getting his message without the filter of the mainstream media that is out to destroy him. i think the use of that is brilliant. i disagree with the last caller. he has taken regulations out of the way that has helped increase business as the economy is on the way up. president obama's people, he of gdp say the new norm was 1% to 2%. we have seen that 2.8% lately, and i think it will soon go over 3% on a regular basis. this president is doing exactly
what he said he would do for the first time in a long time. i respect that. i think he is a great leader. host: thank you for the call. this is from the washington times, the nafta debate and trade issues front and center as the president says the u.s. has been ripped off or year. justin trudeau is chuck todd's guest on nbc's meet the press, which we carry on c-span radio app noon eastern. anthony scaramucci will be joining us at the 9:00 east coast hour. michael is joining us. welcome to the conversation. california, independent line. opinion, tweeting is what
children do. if mr. trump wants to get a point across, have a press conference. he knows if he wants to lie, the knowledgeable press will be able to counter anything he has to say. it took barack obama to bring us out of the disaster george w. bush left us with the banking crisis.home he brought us out of that. he tried to get us health care. the republicans just want to destroy everything barack obama stood for. i find that shameful for the american people. host: thank we will go to thomas next. good morning. joining us from florida. you are on the air. caller: good morning. i would like to say that it is a necessity that trump tweets. eight years we dealt with a weak president.
he shows his strength. he shows he can bypass the liberal media. the media does not kw w to handle him. he gets his message across. host: this is from michael, president trump has brought social media to the political world, unfiltered content that scares the established political class. reading about barack obama based on a new book from his former , obama justadline too good for us. you can read that online at nytimes.com. nevada, democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i just wanted to say that i have been watching the president for a while, and he comes in on an economy that was running at 2.5%. now we are up to 2.8%. debtok a $1.5 trillion
addition to try to make the books look good. when you are spending money with an unlimited checkbook, in makes it easy to say everything is going ok. we still don't have an infrastructure program. this is one of the main things. you have got a good idea here, let's do that. we did not do that. now they want to cut medicare and medicaid so they can get more tax cuts to rich people. everybody get out and vote. it is time to bring the country back to sanity, and less start to balance the budget when we did like one that horrible mr. clinton was in office. host: thank you for the call from nevada. george will writing about gerald ford, our normal president,
based on a new book from donald rumsfeld who served as a senior aide and defense secretary in the ford white house. it is well to finally remember our 38 president. that is available in the washington post. the present week did not fully know. booktv, whichn airs 48 hours of book programming every weekend. massachusetts, independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. it is called free speech. my question would be, what about the left's use of the media for the last 60 years? we were told by the new york times that hillary would win alabama and texas.
90% of the media is democrat. i think he is doing a wonderful job for the country. host: thank you for the call. late last week before the markets open and before the official report came out on the low unemployment number, the president tweeting in advance of those numbers, he tweeted about the jobs report before the release. criticism from the wall street journal. therese is joining us on the democrats line. thank you for joining the conversation. caller: thank you for taking my call. my view on twitter is it is his propaganda tool. he uses it to bypass the press because that way he will not be forced to tell the truth. it is nothing more than his vat of kool-aid that his followers are drinking from. host: thank you. jaclyn, florida, republican line. caller: good morning.
i noticed the other day when the president was walking the korean he white house, t they just had a talk, and he was walking him out, walked into the and and then he stood there took questions. in theas a bird tweeting bushes near him. i have never heard a bird tweets allowed. over the tweeted president. host: i was listening on radio, and it was absolutely apparent. it was outside the rose garden where he was meeting with reporters. caller: i was telling my friend last night, i did not think of tweeting and twitter because i am too old for that, but i thought it was adorable that the
bird was out doing the president. tweeting, and she is younger. that i did not draw connection. the bird just off in the distance chirping verio loudly. -- very loudly. caller: thank you. host: you can see that moment on the c-span website, the president speaking to reporters. the summit scheduled to take place on june 12 in singapore. we wl have coverage as details become available. maryland,mes from independent line. caller: yes, i think the tosident does have right express his views. social media, however, was created to promote social
friendshipeace, across the world. hasrtunately, the president beenit, his comments have antisocial, destroying friendship, anti-islam, anti-this and anti-that. it is just the fact that he has used it against what it was intended to do, which was to bring people together. that is my comment. host: thank you. the president can do longer block his followers based on a court ruling. this is from the new york daily news as the president cannot block with her users, -- twitter users, as a judge declares twitter a public forum.
morning.od i have that problem since i was a young child. trump has a boisterous new york activity about him. him,u say something about he is going to say something back. i don't know if you have dealt with people from new york. i was living in texas, and i used to buy cars from a guy from new york. he was the most obnoxious guy. he was also very boisterous. do you realize that no other president in the last 60 years has got north korea near the table in person for real like just what has occurred?
that in itself is bigger than what gerald ford and all the other -- gerry fell down a lot, got hurt, played football. the media trashed him constantly. what i am saying is president trump does not use certain words on twitter if you notice, like other comedians do, and his family has been attacked savagely by the media for no reason other than being trump. if my dad was attacked like their dad was attacked, i would do something a bit more provocative than what they have done. host: thank you for the call. sorry for the wrong name at the beginning. his tweet, great to have put -- potus go directly to the people, bypassing the mainstream
media leftists. good morning, john. caller: i agree with what he is doing. he is communicating very well. until that to roosevelt when he had the fireside chats. that was unique. this guy is using the communication system with have today. are people afraid of what he is saying? he puts himself right out there. they will criticize it or agree with it. give the guy credit for communicating. if he did not communicate this way, people would be saying he is not up-to-date with the communications we have today. thank you. host: thank you. this is another tweet, trump is afraid to enter the white house briefing room. you can join the conversation on our facebook page. patrick from georgia, democrats line.
good morning. caller: that's all he is. aselected an internet troll president. we should be embarrassed. host: thank you. caroline from baltimore. good morning. caller: thank you. overseaslk to people about the president, it is embarrassing. when you see the tweets, he is supposed to be president, and adults. -- an adult. are so stupid sometimes. he should be running the country, not talking about roseanne barr. he represents the country, and his tweets, when i talk to people who don't follow him, it is just totally embarrassing to hear what they have to say, not just about the president but
about the country who he represents. it bothers me that he represents the country. he needs to be an adult. he needs to have a conversation, not a monologue tweet of what he thinks every minute. he has work to do. you cannot do it while you are tweeting. host: thank you for joining the conversation. some more comments, this from hunter. -- the onlysage his way his message can get out with the corrupt media. this, he constantly incriminate himself on twitter, so i encourage him to keep using it. heather, i have blocked him. i don't read it. it's not productive. people should stop talking about his tweets. roseanne says, the talking with the racist tweets that got him elected? those are on our facebook page. tom is joining us next.
go ahead. caller: i don't understand why emonist party is so aggravated at trump. he is allowed to use his free speech. i think it is perfectly ok. they are mad because they lost the election. they had a crummy candidate. she was no good. she was a liar. she should be in jail. demonists are all that is left of the democratic party. that is the new party now that has formed from the democrats. monist party. host: let's go to jail. good morning. -- joe. good morning. caller: i am really upset with
the language that is going on in this country right now. --hink.com has gone his best think donald trump has gone his best to destroy political correctness in america. when he said, if you don't like political correctness, you don't like what we're saying, tell them to blank themselves. i think that was the destruction of american discourse. host: thank you. this tweet from a viewer, reading his morning tweets is embarrassing. they usually are tweets where he tries to convince himself that he did not collude with russia. this is from james, maryland. good morning. maryland, good morning. caller: hello? host: go ahead. caller: i don't know who i am
speaking to. host: you are on the air. go ahead. tweets are meant to expose the elephant in the room. that is why things don't get done. everybody talks around them. he exposes them for what they are at the very extreme. people talk about what he says for weeks or months to get things resolved. people get to work on them. that's what happened with the immigration. nobody was talking about it. he excites people to have conversation to make sure they talk about it to get it worked out. host: thank you for the call. on the republican line from maryland. a lot of you are joining in on the conversation on facebook. this is more of what you are saying, trump is beyond pathetic on twitter. steve is calling it a fountain of lies and nonsense. waysays it is an effective
to sidestep the media establishment that has proven it is unwilling to cover this administration without bias. having said that, he could be a little more restrained at times, but this is one of the things his supporters like about him. john says it is great. trump speaks directly to the people. of course, fake news cannot stand it. lou says he has taken total control of the news cycle. good morning. welcome to the program. caller: hello? host: it is rudy. go ahead. thatr: i would like to say the president can get away with insulting people, using foul across the people, and
then people, comedians use foul firedges, and they get and everything. nobody else can use foul language but the president. why is that? host: thank you for the call. we had an earlier caller observed when the president was meeting with reporters on friday, outside the rose garden adjacent to the oval office, pretty apparent that the bird behind the president or in the tree above was time to take up some of the attention. let's listen. chirping] host: with so much attention on
twitter, there is the real-life hirping.of the birds c we posted that on our website at c-span.org. you can listen for yourself. jeff is joining us from north carolina, democrats line. we are asking your views of the president's use of twitter. caller: good morning. i agree. trumpe with president because it has been proved that there are so many lies told about president trump that the only way he can address them in short order without it perpetuating the news cycle without a response directly from him. , and iefreshing for me think many other people, and it was proven on election day. i'm sure his twitter is going to help him get reelected because
president trump will say what he means. finally, we've got someone who is being honest with america. the last president was the most dishonest, deceiving person to ever hold the office. i think the twitter use by donald trump is nothing but positive. at least we can tell by his words what he means. he follows through. host: jeff, you are phoning and on the democrats line. are you a registered democrat? caller: my goodness. this cannot be the democrats line. i must have pushed the wrong number. host: we will go to california. go ahead tennis. caller: hello. it is denise. host: go ahead. caller: i am against it. it is a play on autocratic dynamics of the crowd. join the crowd.
speak to them as if you are a member of the mob. make their hate your hate. if they are poor, talk of poverty. if they are afraid, talk to them of their fears. if they are angered, give them an object of their fear. make the mob an extension of yourself and say -- if they tell minorities, say we are the minorities. it is an autocratic play. a lot of people are falling for it. that is my comment. host: thank you for the call. this is from rick. are those oftweak a guilty man, each of them cries out i am a crop, what are you going to do about it? first criminal to confess on twitter. he tweeting.
tweeting. carol saying the president has done more in two years than president obama did in eight. scott pruitt, his cozy ties with baron, next to that, a preview of the primary in california on tuesday, taking place on june 6. the story that broke yesterday for michael schmidt, president trumps lawyers have quietly waged a campaign to keep the special counsel from trying to force him to answer questions in the investigation as to whether he obstructed justice, asserting that he cannot be compelled to testify, arguing that he could committed obstruction because of his unfettered authority over the department of
justice. the letter obtained by the new york times contends that the president cannot illegally obstructed any aspect into the investigation because of the constitution empowering if he wished to terminate the exercise. to anthonyspeaking scaramucci about that at 9:00. laurence tribe will join us in about 10 minutes. he is looking at presidential impeachment. let's go to paul, new jersey, republican line. good morning. caller: hello. host: good morning. caller: to put things on this twitter situation. imploding,ump world treasonous, ersatz authority. ignoramuses tong
trust the rogue. i've got more. host: we are listening. go ahead. caller: sure. host: we will move on to a caller from arizona. thank you for waiting. caller: good morning. i have just a quick thing. every time the president tweets, he is crying. he wants his way like a spoiled little kid. i see him lying to the public. if this is a country of freedom, there should be a law that says politicians cannot purposely lie to the public. i am sick of it. have a great day. host: thank you. on facebook, roth says direct to the people, make america great again. this from christopher who says, president trump troll,
disgraceful. sounds like a 10-year-old brett. -- brat. bob is joining us from the republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. thank you for c-span. host: certainly. thank you. to congratulate the president for getting his point across. he lays it out there for everyone to see. that is a breath of fresh air. the other issue that needs to be broached his might disappointment- is my disappointment with c-span. you are always an objective source, probably the only objective source that i would go to for news, information, commentary. this morning with the thing about the bird, it is just so yellow journalistic for you guys to even go there. i cannot tell you how disappointed i am with you guys.
i really am. you guys have to get with journals and. the yellow journalism has to go. host: to explain, we had a viewer that commented about the bird that was tweeting behind the president. we just showed it. where is the disconnect? caller: why you have to jump in with it? it is yellow journalism. it really is. you guys have to get with objective journalism and not little cheap hshots, below the belt nonsense. you guys are probably the only place where people can get out real information. host: it was not meant as a cheap shot. we wanted to let you hear what the caller was talking up. caller: i don't think so. i disagree.
i think a lot of other people do. it was unnecessary. it really was. because the caller said something doesn't mean you have to go take into your archive and pull it out. i'm sorry. host: it's not in the archives. it happened on friday. it was on the website. i will agree to disagree. the great part of the program is for people like you to weigh in. it was not meant as yellow journalism or anything other than the fact that to be quite honest that when i heard it, i thought the same thing, the bird behind the president was rather loud. thank you for the call. from connecticut, republican line. good morning. lls are i think these po out of whack again. just like with the election. 2000 people, and that is supposed to represent the country's feelings.
that does not make sense out of their hundred 50 million. host: thank you. since the media will not say what we want and agree with us, i will go on twitter and make up stuff. jean, democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning, steve. this is not about the one the election. -- who won the election. doesn't 45 know that he won the election? it is so sad that he disrespects his followers children. he uses all this foul language. 45, if his lips are moving, he is lying. he is a bully. ideaied this fake news before he started his campaign. he uses twitter to divide us. sad that the congress
allows this mentally ill man to continue in office. god tome, my trust is in fix this problem because men refuse to do it. begin tweak all that he wants to tweet all that he wants to, but the only thing he is tweeting our laws. -- are lies. host: 72% of those in the survey say the president is tweeting too much, 13% about the right amount, 12% with no opinion and 2% say more. jim is joining us from the republican line. caller: good morning. it is funny. i trust in god also to fix any situation. we are in a time where everybody is super excited. going back to the president's use of tweets, it is freedom of
speech. he can do whatever he wants. sometimes it has a good effect. i think he has the right to do it. i'm not sure what else he would do. we are in very serious times were people will not sit back and talk to each other. i don't know how we ever going to come to the table. i think we're just going to fight it out, and somebody wins. host: thank you for the call. our last color is on the democrats line. caller: good morning. how are you? host: i'm fine. caller: it is stunning that we are questioning the use of the president's twitter when google, facebook, twitter itself are now taking the position that free speech is no longer free speech. they are going to sanitize free-speech in social media. media on youtube are
being eliminated by the millions. we are questioning the president's right to convey a message to the american people when former director of the cia brendan goes on msnbc and himself, disgrace of defaming the president of the united states and our country. the president has every right to do what every american should have the right to do. the question c-span needs to be asking is why is google, facebook, and all of the social networking sites equating americans with alternative viewpoints with colluding with russia? host: you mentioned john brennan. the peace in the opinion section of the washington post, oval office without integrity. he is going after the president and makes reference to the four
the cia presidents director worked under him including barack obama. laurence tribe here with a new book focused on impeachment, historical analysis of when it is used and when it is not used. laurence tribe. anthony scaramucci will be with us later. our guest this week on newsmakers is john murphy, senior vice president for international policy at the u.s. chamber of commerce. terraceussion is the imposed -- tariffs imposed on canada, mexico, and the eu. [video clip] >> it has been interesting to hear so many members of congress speak out and share their opposition to these tariffs. one common message is you need to treat your friends that are then you treat your adversaries.
on theimposing tariffs basis of national security on our closest allies in the world, which are our best customers in the world. these are comments we have heard from speaker ryan, majority leader mcconnell, a large number of members. who we havemembers thebeen critical of administration before. the threat a week ago that there might also be tariffs placed on imported cars and auto parts is also very attention-getting. as big as steel and aluminum may be, the auto sector is a huge deal. the idea that we will have 25% tariffs as the white house told the press, that is potentially incredibly damaging to the
sector, and not just to form nameplate-- foreign firms, but to the big three, gm, chrysler. ford. this is our largest manufacturing sector. it is our largest export sector. it is doing well. it has doubled production in the last decade. carspose 25% tariffs on that are manufacturing on the basis of global supply chains, it would cut their operations to ribbons. that is an issue. stateay about cars, every is an auto state. they touch every part of our economy. that is an issue that is going to be galvanizing for the u.s. congress. john murphy from the u.s.
chamber of commerce. that interview is at 10:00 a.m here on c-span. check out our free c-span radio app. all of our programming online anytime at c-span.org. joining us from boston is professor laurence tribe, the co-author of the new book titled "t,o end it presidency, the power of impeachment." if lawmakers are going to proceed with impeachment, they should do so with caution. can you explain? guest: first of all, thanks for having me on. impeachment is an extraordinary power. the framers of the constitution knew that we needed some way, in case of emergency, to remove a president who simply would not live within the role of the, a
president who put himself above the law. president cannot be an everyday event. it cannot be a way of expressing buyers remorse about the previous election. it has to be reserved for cases where there is a broad, bipartisan consensus that just won't do to wait until the next election. that will only happen, the framers believed, if the president commits treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. if the evidence is so clear that a majority of the house is ready to charge the president with those offenses, that is, to impeach him. senate,hirds of the that means 66 senators are
him, that doesge not happen frequently. many people, including me, are terribly frustrated with this president and inpatient because of all the army does, but we have to move -- harm he does, but we have to move cautiously. we cannot do this more than once for any given president. ump, watch impeach tr him get acquitted in the senate, and then say we have to try again. once he is acquitted, he will go around and say, i told you i did nothing wrong. the russians did not help me win the election. i did not cover anything out. i did not obstruct justice. he will be even more dangerous than before. that is why we have to be cautious. the book that i wrote with my former student, joshua matt,
explores all of the factors, historical,. go, political. -- historical, philosophical, political. be clear, you are not advocating impeachment for donald trump, but you are explaining when it should or should not be used. guest: correct. we hope this book will be a point of reference for people as 20l as an enjoyable read years from now, 25 years for now. i have been teaching for almost 50 years. i did not want to read a book about just one president, especially a president who is so far off the charts. -- may have more like him. we need to be able to reason together about what it should
take to bring a president down. of course, there are other ways of trying to rein him in. we have by no means exhaustive them. i am involved with my co-author in a number of lawsuits against this president for violating the emoluments clause of the constitution and violating the constitution in a number of ways. if we eventually went in the supreme court, and trump defies it, and there is some reason to think he might justo that because he seems to believe he is above the law, then the whole system will collapse unless he is removed. i am actually more confident than a lot of other people that even people on his side of the political aisle, who seem completely spineless when it comes to bringing him in now
might get religion at some point enough isconclude enough. we cannot just hitch our wagons to the skies falling star any longer. -- this guy's falling star any longer. host: two presidents have been and bill, andy johnson clinton. you point out that andrew jackson and john tyler facing possibility of impeachment. guest: andrew johnson you mean. host: andrew jackson as well. guest: there has been impeachment talk about truman, jackson, and the real efforts have been after the civil war beginning with andrew johnson and continuing with nixon and
clinton and now perhaps trump. host: our phone lines are open. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. send us a tweet @cspawj. the guest is laurence tribe. let's go to the u.s. constitution, article two, section four, the president, vice president and all civil officers of the u.s. shall be removed office on impeachment treason, conviction of bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. high crimes and misdemeanors, how do you define that? guest: the framers were deliberately vague. they did not want to limit it to treason and bribery because they knew there were other things that the so violate -- that
could so violate our system of checks and balances that they for for general term found abuses of power that threaten the rule of law. those need not be crimes. for example, if the president promises to pardon anybody who beats up one of his opponents or immigrant nonwhite and basically says, all of you guys have a get out of jail free manifestlywould be a impeachable offense, but it would not be a crime. there are some crimes that are not high crimes and misdemeanors like tax evasion. if this president is abating his taxes, that is not an abuse of his official powers.
they resisted going even further and making it a complete free-for-all. at one point they debated making nistration impeachable. that could apply to almost any presidency. there are some states that apply misconduct or misbehavior for their government is impeachable. that would mean any time the congress disagrees profoundly the president on policy, suppose law, and a they think they are right and he is wrong, he could be impeachable. that was the argument made with john tyler. they thought he vetoed too many bills. the framers of the constitution left the discussion to us. they did not try to create a
formula for what was impeachable. they did not just say anytime ,ou disagree with the president the thing to do is to try to remove them. they struck a balance, and a pretty good one, although it is one that leaves a huge amount of judgment to we the people. with two presidents having been impeached, andrew johnson in 1867 bill clinton in 1998, neither convicted in the u.s. senate, what are the lessons from these points of history? guest: the lesson from the clinton impeachment is that truly partisan impeachments for offenses like lying under oath about a sexual affat do not really shake the republic and threaten our ability to abide by the rule of law in general, that those kind of
impeachments are going to fail in the senate and only embolden and empower the acquitted president. soared's popularity after the impeachment was rejected by the senate. the andrew johnson impeachment is rather different. in that one, where he came within one vote of being convicted, most historians have included -- concluded that the impeachment was terribly real abuse.as not based on any the basic charge on which she was -- he was impeached was his decision to fire the secretary of war, edwin stanton, without senate. -- without the technical basis that was cooked up. it was not really a good one.
the tenure of office act was later struck down as unconstitutional. the president should not have to consult the senate before firing a cabinet member. there was a good reason that could have been used in his case. he was fundamentally trying to undo the union victory in the civil war. he was unwilling to pursue lincoln's program of reconstruction. and he was going to be, essentially, open to all but re-enslaving african-americans. his programs, policies, practices show that he was ripping the country apart rather than helping to cement the union that lincoln had successfully preserved. it wass not a crime, but what the constitution elegantly calls a high crime or misdemeanor. if you had been charged with
that, i think a conviction in the senate would have been more likely and more appropriate. so the lesson there is we shared shouldit -- we revisit our history and not take the automatic views of it as right and we should be careful when we use the impeachment power to frame the right reasons for going after a president who has fundamentally broken his compact with the american people and his oath under the constitution. host: let's bring in our viewers and listeners, including c-span radio and sirius xm, the potus. good afternoon to those watching on the bbc parliament channel in great britain. our guest is laurence tribe, joining us from boston. he has written more than 115 books and articles. he has been a teacher for 5 decade and is the co-author of "to end a presidency: the power of impeachment."
from the book, he writes impeachment does not require proof of a crime. the argument the only criminal offenses are impeachable are deeply and profoundly wrong. it misunderstands the u.s. constitution, history, and the nature of criminal law in important ways. let's bri iour viewers. from salinas, california, don. republican line. caller: hi. i have been watching from the beginning. this guest of your seems to believe he has written a blueprint on how to successfully impeach the president. and he believes himself that the president needs to be impeached. host: you want to respond? guest: i do not know where the reader is getting this fact that i believe the president needs to be impeached. i believe serious investigation is necessary, an impeachment
investigation, but i have refused to join the call by people like tom steier to impeach this president now. we devote a chapter of the book, chapter five, to the proposition that there is too much loosed impeachment talk. needs to beeachment cautiously and carefully approached. don is responding to a cartoon version of who i am. host: democrats line, sebastian, florida. caller: good morning. i do not believe that -- as a democrat -- the president should be impeached. from a purely political standpoint, i do not think there will read the slightest chance of a conviction. will benot think there the slightest chance of a
conviction. he should serve out his term and let the people decide in the next election. but if you were to be impeached and convicted, what would happen is that the vice president would then assume the office of the presidency, serve out the , and then have an excellent chance of reelection when he runs in 2020. strategicould be a loss. from a political standpoint, for the democratic party. host: thank you. you talk about politics in your book as well and how that is part of the cycle. can you explain? guest: impeachment is a political process, but it has a legal frame of reference. to of the things we tried do in the book, which i am glad you told me you liked, is
explain how law and politics interact in this process. thehow, if you forget political side, you will make a terrible set of blunders. but if you ignore the legal side, you will risk destroying the constitution and the country. strictlyfrom a clinical point of view with your caller that -- from a straggly political-- strictly point of view with your caller that letting trump do his blunders, like the completely weird position of a tariff that will lose american jobs, that he will make things worse and worse for himself. but the constitution we have is a fragile device. if in the course of doing that, he defies judicial orders, which he has not done yet, but looks
like he might -- he has said he might defy an order to submit to a subpoena, which would be a first in american history. basically, presidents are subject to subpoenas. and as hisbpoenaed, lawyer said in a memo, no, the president is above the law, above the subpoena power, then even though it may be politically wise to do nothing, we would be breaking faith with the constitution to essentially go back to a system where someone is king. tyrants do not easily give up power. if we simply let this guy get away with anything and say let's wait until 2020, it may be too late by 2022 restore a constitutional democracy under the rule of law. host: you are referring to headline from the "new york times." based on 20 page letter the
times got, the president is exempt from questions -- is he? guest: not in the constitution as i understand it and read it. a subpoena was issued to richard nixon to turn over his tapes. he may be argument you cannot subpoena a sitting president. he lost. he lost in the u.s. supreme court in the nixon tapes case. in clinton v. jones, bill clinton a the argument that you cannot make me testify. it looked like it was not going to go anywhere, so he relented and testified "voluntarily." -- it isent that written to a gullible, nonlegal public. it does not make any genuine legal arguments. in fact, there is a frightening -- it doesn there not matter how corrupt the president's motives are, he can
do anything with the apartment of justice as if it were his own private law firm. he saysan even use the pardon power. of course, he can use the pardon power as a way of showing mercy to people. it like a giant, loud elephant whistle. basically telling people if you have my back and do not cooperate with the investigations into what russia did and what i did and what i knew and when i knew it, i will have your back. it almost sounds like he is saying he can pardon himself and, thereby, evade impeachment. first of all, the impeachment clause itself says the pardon power does not extend to cases of impeachment. if all he means is he can pardon himself so that when he is out of office he cannot be convicted, i think he is confusing himself with vice president pence. pence can pardon him if he
leaves office, the way ford parted nixon -- pardoned nixon. as i showed in an article, the self part in is -- pardon is rolled out. 'pardonident can say me" if he steps on your toes. " but he cannot say "pardon me -- we do have a king. emperor. have an one of our complaints against king george the third was he was tong his royal corroborative abstract justice. -- obstruct justice. --this resident thinks president thinks using a pardon justiceact -- obstruct
-- host: after the iran contra scandal broke -- put on your hat as a teacher at harvard university -- did you think congress had enough authority to begin impeachment proceedings against ronald reagan, or do you think history worked out the way it should have? guest: those are two different questions. history worked out the way it should have in the sense that it was not wise to impeach him at that point, late in his term. and in the sense that he really made -- not entirely convincing but plausible, case that he had -- even though he had been guilty of changing -- trading hostages, it was not correctly self-serving, the way that this president appears to do. on the other hand, the red line
had been crossed. he had clearly lied to the american people, to officials. he had clearly traded arms for hostages in violations of laws that have been passed by congress. those are potentially impeach able offenses. in our book, we make the argument in chapter three, which deals with the power not to impeach -- even though a president may have committed a high crime and misdemeanor, that is just getting to first base. to get to home, you have to conclude, all things considered, that it would make sense to impeach that president. for example, if there is no chance at all he would be convicted and removed, that is definitely strike one against impeaching him just to make a statement. him to always censure make a statement. there are other factors that have to be considered. in clinton's case, it was
offense,an impeachable although i justify it did not cross that line, for him to have committed perjury and lie under oath about his various affairs. andwhen the house impeached the senate began to conduct the trial, senator robert byrd, often called the conscience of the senate, made an extended speech about why, although he thought clinton was eligible for removal, he ought not to be removed. we should not exercise the impeachment power. we should use a jury power of nullification and the jury's discretion. problem that we tackle in the book. we give historical examples. but it is good you ask the question. it shows a real difference between whether something that has been done by the president is impeachable and whether he
ought, at that point, to be impeached. host: we are talking with professor laurence tribe. gina is joining us from ohio. caller: i want to know when this country changed and when the i am ats calling me -- poor white woman -- they call me privileged. i am not privileged. i am not a racist, but that is what i am called every day. how somebody can have so much hatred for one man. host: thank you. we will get a response. guest: i sympathize in the sense that i think any of us would feel terrible being mislabeled and looked down on. i think there are some democrats, and republicans as well, who are stuck in their own elitism and looked down on
people, think of them as deplorable, who attribute that motive to them, when they simply feel voiceless and left out, like this caller. on the other hand, a lot of hatred is coming from the far right. s,"y talk about "good nazi they talk about mexicans being muslims they talk about not loving the country -- there is more than enough hatred going around. it is a vicious cycle. it is hard to know how to stop it or you are part of what we discussed in the book is how the underlying conditions of mutual disrespect and dislike and even hatred have put us in a situation of almost dysfunctional politics. that is part of what gave rise to the trump presidency. andrew moving just this one president, if that happened, will not eliminate the underlying condition. it is like what john dean
described when he talked about mixing -- nixon having spawned a cancer on the presidency. in this case, there may have been a cancer in our politics, o ne of whose symptoms was the enormous division that led to an electoral college winner who was 3 million votes behind in the election and was guilty of so much disrespect and disgusting commentary about his opponents -- making fun of disabled people, essentially showing more disrespect than what the caller is describing -- that was all generated by an underlying disease that i do not think will cure itself unless we work from the ground up, with politically engaged people. that is why i am so encouraged by the various popular movements movement, the
parkland kids trying to register voters, talk to one another with some degree of respect. i think that is how we can get our democracy back. host: barbara is back, democrats line, with laurence tribe joining us from boston. good morning. caller: hi, steve. good morning, professor tribe. of your tvor all appearances, particularly this one that is so articulate and meaningful to me. guest: thank you. you're welcome. i encourage you to make as many media appearances as you can, like this one. i want to talk about what you do in particular that works for me. it is a combination of recounting history so accurately and in depth. much of the commercial media decries going into the weeds, but that is what we have c-span for. you make distinctions where
people are unaware -- where people without your in-depth understanding of the law are not aware of. making these distinctions is incredibly important. it has been said over and over that this presidency is an mri, a stress test on our entire system. god knows that is true. is anam a person who optimist, so i am projecting forward to the end of this presidency and how this drama plays out. and how this process we are going through will place itself on the shelf with the other presidents you spoke about, johnson and clinton. -- there are-old people who did not even experience clinton, much in the -- much less nixon. your articulation and ability to bring forward these important presidents and line them up and
show how the system really works is phenomenal. mr. giulianitering -- they are your opponents in the legal round. guest: thank you. of commentsa couple about that. first of all, i appreciate what you have said. as eager to be on tv as these other guys are, but i am doing what i am, at least while my book is still out there. especially if you are interested in learning about this stuff in depth in a way that involves an enjoyable read, i hope you get all of your friends to buy the book. it is available, you know, in every format. audio, hardcopy, eventually paperback. that said, one of the ways that in how to make
this stuff clear and do it in depth without using too much legalese or making it too boring is by remaining a teacher. i love teaching these kids -- i call them kids. they are in their 20's. that i love remaining inactive harvard law professor, both teaching undergraduates and advanced law students. they really hold your feet to the fire. you cannot get away with too much b.s. when you are teaching critical minds. they do not know exactly what stuff.ink about all this trying to make things clear to them and learning from them is what makes it such a privilege to be a professor. and i have had amazing students. over the years. the chief justice roberts, president obama, lots of people i have learned from. host: what was the chief justice
like as a student? guest: he was very thoughtful, respectful, precise, brilliant, analytical. i did not get to know him as much as i got to know elena kagan and barack obama, because they did a huge amount of research with me and worked closely with me. john roberts was a face in the crowd. i got to know him a little, but not terribly well. but he was a wonderful student. all three of them were. host: does it surprise you that john roberts is chief justice, is onkagan -- elena kagan the supreme court, and barack obama became president? guest: i would love to say i predicted it. but no, they had unlimited potential. in retrospect, i am not surprised where they ended up. i am pleased, in all three cases. in the long run, they will have done great service to the country and the law. host: richard joins us on the republican line, louisville, kentucky.
caller: good morning. it is telling that you use the gentleman from west virginia, , grandbyrd, the democrat cyclops of the ku klux klan, hillary clinton's mentor, for someone to come out and say why they should not remove bill clinton from office. but that is for another time. my question to the good professor, which, of course, i can tell that you are very liberal about the current president. and is he a politician? no, he is just a knucklehead trying to straighten this country are from people like you. my question is if you find out the it former president use fbi, cia, nsa, can you post impeach a president? -- guest: no. it cannot be done. caller: all you can do is lock them up, is that correct?
guest: and you can do that only if the statute of limitations has not run. under our system, you can only impeach a sitting official. but you can certainly prosecute somebody after-the-fact if there is still time under the applicable laws. i would not hesitate to do that if the evidence warranted it. host: we are not only talking about the book, but this is a history lesson. let me share a tweet from a viewer. ask mr. tribe to burst the bubble of the democrats thinking the invocation of the 25th amendment is their godsend. in the book, you write as compared to the impeachment clause, the 25th amendment erects a far more daunting barrier against politically end ated efforts to presidency. and in the event of a genuine dispute, the 25th amendment process could inflict significantly more damage on american democracy. explain the amendment and what you wrote.
made part amendment, of the cause of titian in 1967, was designed to fill a number of gaps. one of them was there was no provision for the vice president automatically becoming president upon the president's death. that is why there was so much political and emotional back and forth about lyndon johnson assuming the presidency when jfk was assassinated. some people thought he should be deemed acting president rather than president. but there were other gaps. what happens if the president was in a,, simply could not function? what happens if the president had been kidnapped, taken hostage, and therefore could not function? we would need a process to put someone else in the place of the president, at least until he was ok again. that was the complicated machinery of the 25th amendment,
which requires, first of all, the vice president, and then a majority of members of the president's cabinet, unless congress has, in advance, created a different body to substitute for the cabinet majority, requires them to say the president is in capable of serving. "i am president says not," there is a complicated back and forth. if two thirds not of the senate -- which you need to remove a president through impeachment -- but also the house, which is more than the majority you need is twoiate impeachment, thirds of both chambers of congress overruled the president president, you are not able to carry out the office -- and even then, the president can say "yes, i am." every 21ues a period,
days, where the question comes up again, and the issue is you have to thirds of both houses to keep the vice president in place and the president, still in power but not able to exercise power, standing on the sidelines and using the billy colbert -- bully pulpit. one word to imagine -- vice president pence and the majority of this cabinet yanking that chain and two thirds of the house and senate going along -- which is unimaginable. but if you can imagine it, what would happen is pence would act as president for purposes of making foreign policy, nominating justices. in the meantime, the really colorful entertainer donald trump would hold the bully pulpit and constantly make the case to the nation that this was a coup, that he is perfectly capable, or he is a stable genius, he would surely tell us.
it would be kind of nightmarish. in whichcircumstance the 25th amendment would be of any use in this kind of situation, as opposed to one of of someonencapacity who is completely out of it or someone who has been kidnapped or has decided to spend the rest of his term golfing in bermuda or something, the only way it could be useful israeli if the president gauck asked is -- is really if the president goes off his rocker and friends to nuke north korea preemptively -- and threatens to nuke north korea preemptively. in that case, we could evoke the 25th amendment. but that is a very limited and special circumstance. thee was this take boom for 25th amendment while we were writing the book, and we thought it important to tell people to
chill out. medical rising political disagreement is every bit as ad as criminalizing political discriminant. host: the book --"to end a presidency: the power of impeachment." our guest is laurence tribe, a graduate of harvard and harvard law school, and has been teaching there. illinois,ns us from independent line. good morning. caller: morning. how you doing? guest: doing well. caller: good. you teach from harvard. of liberalism.on no doubt about it. the entire nation knows about harvard and the way they are persuaded against anything republican. and you are from boston. this thing is it would never come to your mind to it impeach
the kennedys. that is where you came from. let's talk about history. you are just about brainwashed. you should retire, for goodnes'' sake. guest: well, thank you for the advice. i do not think i will take it. host: next caller from brockton, massachusetts. brian, go ahead. caller: i am an uneducated poor person. i am really afraid for my country. i wonder how deep the corruption has gone. i saw general kelly up there -- i am a boy scout. i grew up believing america could do no wrong, and high morals. soproud, people were enthusiastic that general kelly would be in there and bring law and order and straighten things out. what a disappointment he has turned out to be. and then to see giuliani on top
of it. you probably do not want to share your opinions -- it is hard to do on public television. but what makes these gentlemen tick? i am really worried for the country. radual thing. i think we have a real problem with prosecutors threatening juste with jail time, keeping the wheels turning. and you live with a record of something that you should not have a record for -- host: ok, we will jump in and get a response. guest: u respond to several parts of that.
first, about the experience the caller has had -- i have heard it said that a liberal is a conservative who has been prosecuted and a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged. we too easily put people in those categories. for example, lumping giuliani and dershowitz. giuliani is a guy who was, once upon a time, was an effective prosecutor, and is now basically a tool. dershowitz, for all his flaws, is a brilliant guy. still is brilliant. i do not agree with him often. i used to agree with him more. but he has his principles. they may be principles that give too much power to trump -- i think they do -- but i do not like lumping people together. as far as what a great country we have, nobody could be more patriotic than i am. i was born to russian-jewish immigrants.
born in china, world war ii. came here and got all sorts of opportunities that i would have never have gotten in a other country. but i also want to look in a more clear eyed way and our history. we have not always been a boy scout, girl scout country. we killed native americans to take over this country. lynchedved and african-americans. we have a difficult history, and something that barack obama used to revel in one eye -- he was my student, he would say the preamble keeps talking about to make a more perfect union. we have plenty of improvement we can make. our fundamental aspirations are decent and good it a lot has happened to degrade them in recent years. one of the reasons i wanted to write this book was to make whatever contribution i could to pay it forward. a great country has given me great opportunities.
i want to do what i can to help it remain great and not "make it great again." that is code word for going back to the 1950's and to jim crow. host: our neck's on the democrat line from erie, pennsylvania. caller: i am one of the democrats who voted for trump -- host: how is he doing today, from your perspective? caller: from my perspective, he is doing fine. what i wanted to ask the professor was when they get this investigation over, as far as the president, don't you believe we ought to get another special prosecutor or special counsel to look in -- you like to say that we need to investigate all of this stuff. we need tohink investigate stuff like why the previous president had his cia eavesdrop on the senate intelligence committee?
y the last president sent 3000 guns south of the border -- why the last president sent 3000 guns south of the border. why the last president had an american wiped out by a drone one week and then had the man's out the next week on foreign soil. these are the kind of things that obama did, and no one like you stood up -- guest: you are not listening. i was criticizing the use of the drone. you mentioned a lot of things, some of which are factual, others are mythological and part of a conspiracy theory, but broadly speaking, i cannot respond to a series of unsubstantiated charges on national television. i believe that the assumption that all of this terrible stuff happened and, therefore, we need another special prosecutor, is
one that needs to be tested in the same way. and the way suspicions about this president are being questioned. robertueller was appointed by a republican who come himself, was appointed by trump. felt he had no choice but to appoint a special counsel, just days after jim comey was fired by the president in a circumstance where the very next day, he tells lester holt on national television that he did it because of the russia ring. when there is basis for general, the attorney and jeff sessions could not handle the matter because he, in the, was involved possible misdeeds of the campaign. under the rules of the department of justice, he had to recuse himself.
when there is basis for appointing a special counsel, that should be done. there is no basis for doing any of what this caller has described. and at the time of the events, there was no call for a special counsel through the procedures that would have applied. if there had been, i would have listened to it. how do not know quite what i have said, although i was certainly very critical of some student,ings my former the former, did. i sued him in connection with what i thought were violations of certain provisions of environmental law. i am not some kind of patsy who will simply support a president because i am on his side politically. i made a lot of enemies in doing that, but i call it the way i see it. host: independent line, florida. thanks for joining us. caller: thank you, professor. i look forward to your point of view on this question. i appreciate the fact that i can see you on c-span.
i will, in short term, see professor dershowitz. both are you -- both of you have opposing points of view on the impeach ability of the president. i am an investigative journalist. i can see you two on c-span. i will not see you on fox. i saw you recently on cnn. you you feel that the business model of cable news networks is to create silos, so that viewers have to choose a point of view, for example, to watch cnn or fox? is that not a disservice to the american consumer? guest: very good question. in our book, we do talk about the danger of that silo phenomenon, where people can vision,y develop tunnel watch only the channels that reinforce their existing point
of view, though only on to those social media platforms or search for those views that basically tell them what they already believe. i do not think that is good. i do not think that is healthy. i think after roger ailes succeeded in making fox a kind of echo chamber for the right, there was a move to do the same for the left. when i was on a panel recently with jeff to been moderating, he said that is why you should watch cnn, the solution for fox versus msnbc -- i do not think cnn is the greatest thing in the world either. they are all much too committed to guests of a particular persuasion. but i would be willing to go on to fox if one of their real journalists -- and they have some -- wanted to interview me. but it is typically somebody like hannity, where there is no
point in talking to him. someone like alan dershowitz goes on fox much more often than i would be inclined to do. i think, though, we are not condemned to watch only one channel. i make it a point to channel switch, look at msnbc a lot, but occasionally see what is happening over on fox. you have to keep yourself informed. most people are too comfortable in their own groove, listening to their own voice in an echo chamber. that is part of what has torn as a part -- us apart. host: wide you say it would not be worth it to sit down was sean hannity? guest: may be at work. it is just every time i see him on air, talking to people, i do not really see him listening to them. but i do not rule anything out. host: tom is in dayton, ohio. good morning.
caller: good morning. to ask auld like question. what donald trump is doing is basically what people like me, a democrat all my life, and i voted for mr. trump, because -- let me say something real quick. make america great again is what he is talking about. you made into a racial thing. he is talking about when back to the 1970's and 1980's, where the black and white people and some brown people worked in our factories. but as a nation, we have sent our factories out of the country and brought in millions of --ple into our country brought in millions of illegal people into our country. i do not believe in this. the president is doing what we voted him into do. you may not like it. i did not like some of the stuff
obama did. i voted for him the first time, but he became a wall street guy. says i want more trade -- trade has killed the worker. guest: thank you for your view. i think what is killing american workers is not trade but automation. and i think americans are losing their jobs to all sorts of forces. if you are true that this president would -- if it were really true that this president would bring back jobs in the coal industry and manufacturing and would fill those economic promises, that would be a good thing. if you watch not just what he said but what he does and look at what is happening to your job and your wages, by 2020, i do not think the anonymous economic growth that happened under obama and the constant wage increases at the end of his term are really going to be continued.
i think this recent imposition of steel and aluminum tariffs is likely to cost more jobs in her more workers, as well as consumers, because of the retaliation of countries like canada and mexic and the european countries. we will see whether he has really delivered on that promise. he has certainly done a lot of what he said he would do, in terms of going after immigrants. the border, children are being ripped out of the arms of their parents and separated from them, when these parents were not illegal immigrants, when thewere simply seeking asylum, is a disgrace. trumpot think that promised to do that, and now he blames that on some law, says we have to get rid of the democratic law that makes me do that -- there is no law that makes him do that. it is simply an outrage. we could go on -- i do not think
i will necessarily persuade you, that i hope you keep listening. i am trying to listen. host: we go to connie. caller: good morning. in my archives, -- i was born in spain in 1940. then, the spanish civil war and the start of second world war ii. now and theuntry way it goes, it reminds me of my childhood. my parents sent me here as a kid to escape spain. the abuse of power. i see the same thing happening in spain in the civil war, in germany, and italy. i see myself as a child and that
times. i want you to answer me that question, because i am really afraid for my grandchildren. guest: i am terribly sorry -- i cannot really make out all of what the caller was saying. if you could please summarize it for me? host: like you, she talked about coming to the u.s.. grew up in spain, left an oppr essed regime in spain and is worried for her children and grandchildren in this country. guest: i have four grandchildren . i were constantly about them. caller, i tendly to be optimistic. we have had terrible things in our history. ackse was the lynching of bl for many years, in the 1920's and 1940's. there have been episodes, like under democratic president
woodrow wilson, in which civil liberties were suppressed. the people who called for his impeachment as a result of the versailles treaty where the people he tried to prosecute under various guises. and yet we got past that. we have developed a much more vigorous and flourishing first amendment tradition. i think that although it may take a while,- the country will get back on the path of ever knew of democratic traditions. it may be a little too optimistic with martin luther king, that the ark of the moral universe bends always towards justice -- it ends that way if we work hard to bend it. it does not bend of its own accord. but i share the concerns of the
caller. i just hope she will not give up hope for her grandchildren. host: laurence tribe come up the message of your book is what? guest: that we need to use the impeachment power with great care. we do not need to talk it to death, but we need to read about it, learn about it, understand it, be ready to use it when emergency requires it to preserve our democracy. i hope people read it and make that use of it. and i appreciate being on your program. host: "to end a presidency: the power of impeachment." it's co-author professor laurence tribe joining us from boston. thank you for being with us. guest: thank you. host: you have about 15 minutes. we want to open our phone lines and tell us what is on your mind. here are the numbers. (202) 748-8001, outline for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. if you are an independent, (202) 748-8002. anthony scaramucci will join us
at the top of the hour. we traveled to fort worth texas -- fort worth, texas on book tv and american history tv. among their locations, texas christian university, and a look at our 40th speaker of the house -- 48th speaker of the house, jim wright. [video clip] >> these are some diaries kept by speaker wright during his tenure in congress. this did not come to us in the original ascension of his papers, but we received them after his death. they offer a very candid insight into his time in congress. they cover most of the 1970's and some of the 1980's. they do not go all the way up through his requirement and -- retirement and up archer from congress, but they offer some very candid insights into what
was going on at the time. things he would not have been able to put in correspondence to colleagues or anyone else. thisne in particular is interesting. there is a passage from january -- it2 in which he says is sunday. uneventful week behind us. reagan's tuesday night state of the union appearance was a triumph of rhetoric. lines well delivered with the arch rock -- adroit after's skill which made it appear as if they were springing each moment from his heart. host: travel to fort worth, texas. our c-span local content vehicle traveling across the country, part of our cities tour, this weekend on book tv