tv Washington Journal 04302019 CSPAN April 30, 2019 6:59am-10:00am EDT
committee chair adam schiff and freedom caucus chair mark fromws take questions reporters on the mueller report. we leave that event about an hour later when the senate resumes work on executive nominations, including a vote later in the morning on the nomination avoid them cooper to be the energy department. -- nomination of william cooper to be the energy department. another house hearing in the afternoon focuses on the homeland security department cyber security budget. >> this morning, the founder of the need to impeach campaign and the democratic party donor talks about impeachment efforts against president trump, constitutional and criminal law at 8:30,s the guest the author of "the case against impeaching trump."
senior correspondent for kaiser health news looks at electronic medicalelectronic medical recor. we take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" is next. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ this morning on efforts to impeach president trump by the democrats. the u.s. constitution reads "the president, vice president, and all civil officers of the united states shall be removed from onice by impeachment conviction of treason, and other high trams of misdemeanors." say statese surveyed democrats should not begin impeachment while 35% agreed with the effort. if you support the impeachment efforts of democrats,
202-748-8000 is your number. if you oppose, 202-748-8001. you can join on twitter as well at @cspanwj or you can go to facebook.com/cspan. the leader of the effort to impeach the president is tom steyer, progressive billionaire, many of you know him. he is coming up on the washington journal in about 30 minutes at 7:30 a.m. eastern time. he has been pushing impeachment with these types of ads. [video clip] 10 detailed here, acts of obstruction. robert mueller's report lays out a roadmap for impeachment proceedings against this president and challenges congress to do its job. i am tom steyer and we cannot let this president destroy the public trust, break his oath of office, and get away with it. congress has to do its job and
hold him accountable played -- accountable. please call them at this number and tell them to get started. host: taking your questions and comments this morning on efforts to impeach the president. do you agree? -- do you support or oppose this effort? the president's lack of cooperation with congress is in intensifying. it is because of headlines like this in reuters, the president sues deutsche bank and capital one to block house subpoenas for lawmakers wanting to get financial documents. from that washington post article, they note it is the speaker of the house who has the final say on whether or not impeachment is brought to the house floor. pelosi's standard for whether to move ahead on impeachment remains unmet. no republican lawmaker has went
democrats in calling for removing the president and public sentiment, something pelosi cites as the safeguard for policy moves, has not shifted in democratic investigators favor. flaunting his intentions to rebuff congressional requests. his advisors have told don mcgahn he cannot testify or corroborate with -- cooperate with lawmakers although they waved executive privilege to allow him to testify in the mueller investigation and they reached out to aides to encourage them to ignore the house's inquiries. a look at theing history of impeachment, in the 1860's, the house impeached president johnson over his -- the fight over his handling of reconstruction. a similar scenario played out in the 1990's when the republican led house tried to oust bill
clinton. the senate acquitted him and senator nixon -- president nixon was never impeached, but ultimately resigned. matt dallek of george washington university said the forces would have to align and they would need a moment in which there was bipartisan support. if you go to newsday on their -- he writesece about another tactic democrats could use, censure. impeachment is not the only option, censure resolutions carry great impact. if after all the hearings the house judiciary committee believes trump's actions merit punishment, censure is a punishment of indelible shame, far more than impeachment, which the gop-controlled senate could ignore. host: you support efforts to
impeach the president, good morning. caller: good morning. i sure do. what is he hiding? barr lied and republicans don't care. i think what democrats need to do is put it out there and let the republicans say it is ok for him to take all that corporation from russia and try to obstruct the investigation. you don't know what would have been found if he had not dangled all those pardons. let republicans put it on them. let him -- them say everything he did was ok. democrats need to have a backbone. sometimes it doesn't matter. thetake an oath to constitution. high crimes and misdemeanors, he needs to be removed and let republicans in the senate who have been complacent with his racism, lies, crooked business
dealings, collusion with russia, let the republicans say it is ok . that is all i have got to say. host: let's hear from bob who says no. good morning to you. caller: good morning. the gentleman just before, they proved there was no collusion with the russians and that is what i am afraid of, the democrat party has spread such lies and gossip about the president. obama should have impeached, nobody did it. leave the president alone, he is doing a great job for our country, thank you, president trump, for standing up for me, for protecting my family from invaders called illegal aliens. i am a proud american. takee stop the witchhunt, care of america. thank you. host: the washington post notes
when articles of impeachment were brought against to nixon, it was not for the crime. they note this, in july 1974 when the house judiciary committee passed three articles of impeachment, one of the charges leveled against him was contempt of congress. the third article said nixon had failed without lawful cause an excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas. sixthats, led by the chairman in the house, are asking for documents from this president, the administration, deutsche bank, capital one, and the president is saying he will not comply with those subpoenas. with that history in mind, what do you all think? matt in maryland, you support impeachment. caller: thanks for taking my
call. i did not vote for donald trump. i did not like the guy. i did not think he was going to win. i did not think it was plausible this guy would win. as soon as he wins, i was the first to go, he is going to be impeached. it is funny how bipolar the country is. how are you going to impeach a first four years? that is unprecedented. nixon was impeached going into his second term. if you look at what clinton did, clinton was caught lying, caught doing these things red-handed. you have an entire report that doesn't have any conclusion, the prosecutor did not conclude anything and on top of that, if you look at this, why do you need to impeach at this point in his presidency when you can vote him out? this is another bet, a hedged bet, another insurance plan to
get him out. otherwise, it does not make any sense. if you look at the report, they are saying you cannot talk to foreign people. i agree with that, why would you go talk to foreign people, but the other side was imploring the beorts of a british spy to their candidate. i will take the comments, but people have to look in the middle and see it for what it is, it is an olympics for the lawyers in washington. host: mary in california, good morning. you say go for impeachment. impeachment,for thank you for taking my call. my biggest concern is the president of the united states -- have ay we should high standard for our country. trump has done nothing but degrade the office of the president and i feel that
impeachment would be great. i know that takes time, but i am hoping we will vote him out of office, this next election. host: tom in maryland, you oppose. caller: yes, i totally oppose the impeachment of the great leader we have of this country and for the caller from tennessee, he is a racist or more on. the boxer from the 30's arrested for transporting his wife, who was caucasian, a crossed state lines. obama never did it. obama had the opportunity to do it and it is ridiculous. people need to wake up, smell the coffee, and realize what this man is doing. he is trying to save the sovereignty of this nation. has anybody ever listened to anything this man has set? host: do you have any concerns
thet the mueller report and 10 instances of up structure -- bstruction he-- o lays out in that port? caller: that is absurd. if there was obstruction, he would have fired mueller immediately. listening, they should have listened to a guy in 2007m clements back who made a prediction in regards to trump. take the time and listen to it. the georgia guide stones, educate yourselves, see what they say, that is what he is fighting against save our country. tot: in addition to talking
tom steyer who is pushing this idea of impeaching the president, we will talk with alan dershowitz and he wrote a book "the case against impeaching trump." he wrote this in the hill newspaper april 18. a constitutionally authorized act can be turned into a prime if improperly motivated. mueller view is extreme and dangerous to civil liberties because it creates pure thought crime. it to give you an idea of his perspective and you will get to ask questions and state comments to him on the program as well. carol in texas, you support impeaching the president, good morning to you. caller: thanks for c-span and thanks for taking my call. i want some of these people that call in, especially the guy from mechanicsburg who totally supported it and made a bunch of ,tatements against impeachment
there is a direct line from the mueller report that says if we could show true our investigation that the president did not obstruct justice, we would clearly state that in this report. reporttom line is the says in those words that the justice. obstructed in the past, you had an investigation by republicans against a democratic president that led to impeachment. it lasted for five years, for five years they had 12 indictments and got an impeachment of the president for crimes that are actually less than these crimes. the president committed felonies, our current president, donald trump, committed felonies and he committed them while in office, so he needs to face
impeachment. that doesn't mean he will be convicted, but he needs to face impeachment or we can stand back and call him king trump and start saying "all hail king trump." host: what about the political calculation that if democrats start impeachment proceedings, all the focus in washington is on that and not on their legislative agenda and perhaps eats into the time they have to pass things they promised in the 2018 18 election that they would pass? then you get to the election and the voter say you did not do anything, you had control of the house for years and did not do anything so they do not vote democrat and maybe the fallout is president trump gets another term. caller: the only thing i can say about that is it is going to be very difficult anyway for the house to get any of this legislation through when you
have mitch mcconnell in the senate. republicans have control of the senate, standing there saying i am the grim reaper. he literally called himself the grim reaper. no democrat legislation is going -- passed me.ng i don't know what you do, it is time for the republicans. i am afraid and i know this is a difficult jump, but say look, if you don't go and hold this man accountable to the rule of law, you are now saying from this day forward the president is no longer accountable to the rule of law. you are setting a precedent that you are not going to be able to and that is,years when you elect a president, basically, he is now king, he is above the law and that will happen for democrats. that will happen for democrats
and republicans, too. thank you for taking my call. host: randy, wisconsin, you oppose. you are on the air, go ahead. caller: when are we going to quit this impeachment stuff? you are not going to get him impeached. two thirds of the congress and the senate has to vote to impeach him. everyone says "impeach, impeach, impeach." what are you going to impeach him on? just because you don't like him? there are so many more important things to help this country, move forward with your questioning and get off of this impeachment stuff. the same with every democratic show on tv and i watch them all. they are trying to drill it into the people. they've only got another year and i have to get it done before the election comes up. let's talk about the good stuff once in a while. host: and we do, randy, seven
days a week, 365 days a year. some democrats believe they have a constitutional and civic duty to pursue impeachment regardless of the political calculations. there is no escaping a practical math problem. a president can be impeached with a majority in the house, which is probably achievable under democratic control, but two thirds of the senate would have to vote to convict the president. there would need to be 20 convict.ns voting to can anybody imagine that happening? glenn in michigan, you support. caller: how are you? thanks for taking my call. can you hear me? host: we can. caller: i definitely support
,ongress start the process questioning for impeachment because we have to go down that in order to uphold the rules of the constitution. weird that the republicans, after bill clinton, they said it was all about the constitution. we are going to start each session quoting from the constitution and now when it comes down to following it, they trump hasle it and got to be held accountable toause those are the rules run the government, to run our country. if we don't follow the constitution, we will be like some other third country out here and that is what trump wants, he is tearing down
everything, we have to stop it. pedro echevarria with details about today's meeting between president trump and nancy pelosi and chuck schumer in the senate. host: that meeting taking place at the white house to talk about infrastructure and possibly some type of agreement that could come between the parties to make that happen. when it comes to the lead up to that meeting, political return -- reporting "i hope you learned his lesson." that was nancy pelosi after televising the last meeting they .ad some of that strategy playing out in the pages of the wall street journal saying while miss pelosi and mr. schumer said the bill must pay for itself when it comes to infrastructure, they don't outline how to do that. some democrats suggested raising
the national gas tax and others want to roll back tax cuts passed in 2017. a reuters reporter who reports on many things has a tweet this morning saying a source close to chuck schumer saying "unless the president considers undoing tax cuts, schumer will not consider that proposal to raise the gas tax of which the poor and working people would bear the brunt." a column from forbes magazine taking a look at the gas tax and issues with it. gas taxes are not without problems, sometimes the money is not used on what people think it is being used on. $4.25 billion meant for transportation was used on state police. it uses -- loses economic efficiency when it funds things unrelated to transportation. host: derek and randall's town, maryland. good morning to you. .ou support democratic efforts
caller: good morning to you, first of all. .et's put it like this table, donaldhe being he has a history of a stubborn american, self-centered, habitual liar, and sooner or later it will come out. the guy from wisconsin, he is always talking about the economy all the time. would havehoever been president would have had a great economy after all the great work barack obama did. 6500.y was at when hewas at 18,500 left and we weren't talking
about it anymore. he talks like he is the creator revit, the one who did it all and that is not true. he gives nobody credit but himself for something that he has no -- host: do you support impeachment because you don't like him? you don't like his policies? caller: i think he is dumb enough to make a mistake. i don't like him as a man, i don't like him as a person. to --k republicans need if i am not mistaken, they said the democrats outvoted republicans by 9000 votes after he went to every town he could. host: you mentioned nancy pelosi and where she is at. this is what she said last week. [video clip] many ways to hold the president of the united states accountable and the mueller report led the way to indictment making an
with the question of is the president indictable or not. .hat matters is the truth the investigations at our committees will conduct will take us down to a -- down a fact-finding path and everyone should welcome that. what is interesting about it all eyes -- is we see the administration involved in stonewalling of the facts coming to the american people. they want to sue the oversight committee, a elijah cummings, for making a request for testimony. they want to obstruct any subpoenas that come down for information. this is a moment in our history. it's not about politics, it's about patriotism. host: speaker of the house last
week. you oppose efforts to impeach the president. why? caller: yes. good morning. basically because the democrats elected werehe was out to oppose him because he was not supposed to win the election . this is an effort to weaken him for the upcoming election. there are people like eric holder who never produced papers they were supposed to for fast and furious. you had hillary, who destroyed 33,000 emails, hammered cell phones, and that was supposed to be evidence that was supposed to be preserved. .here were really no penalties i really think this is a biased
investigation. people like nancy pelosi, who are worth $100 million who sit on committees that steer ipo's toward her husband's investments. husband gots, her government contracts for his bank after the bank was in trouble. i don't see anyone opposing that . by the way, i think all members of congress should produce 10 years worth of congress and -- taxis and see how their committee decisions may have influenced their decision making. host: matt in maryland, good morning. 3 caller: how are you doing? host: you say go ahead with efforts to impeach the president. caller: yes. thatld like to point out
people might be interested to was tomi believe it from chicago, the congressman at and you can pull this shameless this is how republicans are, months after the clinton impeachment, he admitted it was about revenge for nixon. i wanted to say in case people don't remember nancy pelosi, while we were trying to do something about that war criminal, bush, told us that "impeachment is off the table." quite frankly, i think she needs to be removed because she has a history of this. say -- she is
pointing to the history of the clinton impeachment proceedings, that republicans paid the price for moving forward on impeaching president clinton, they lost to the election, still went forward with articles of impeachment and it did not work. caller: i disagree. of the people pay the price for that because just like everything the republicans do, you give them an inch, and they take a mile. now they are doing things even worse than this with trump, trump has become arrogant and republicans have, too, because they ink they can get away with this. host: on cbs yesterday, newt gingrich was talking about impeachment and how the independent counsel for clinton .as different from mueller's [video clip] >> the framers created a very political standard, high crimes and misdemeanors, which every
congress can decide, he doesn't look good on television, let's impeach him. it is a political decision. in our case, i went back and reviewed this. when we got the report from the independent counsel in the 1990's, he had 11 counts that he said clinton was guilty, five of them were obstruction and the other 6 involved lying under oa th. if mueller had come back and said trump was guilty on 11 counts, he would have been impeached by the house. i think this is where nancy pelosi is right to be careful. first of all, it is a republican senate. they are not going to convict, period. second, we discovered, and here i will tell you to go read a
book about how the good guys won about tip o'neill and watergate. something the size of impeachment, you have to follow the country, not get ahead of it. host: brenda, south carolina. you support. what do you think of what the former speaker had to say? caller: i guess he has his opinion like everybody else because the republicans, it is seems like they believed in the constitution and for all the collars that don't want to impeach, he is doing such a great job. i don't understand how the republicans -- congress can let him say anything, do anything, and not hold him accountable. i don't believe they should impeach him right now because it will not pass through congress. all the voters that believe he should be impeached in 2020, get out and vote, vote him out. i don't think he will last four
years. i did not vote for trump. when he was elected, i accepted him as my president because he said he could act presidential. he has not yet. the other night with the shooting in the mass, he got up and talk to him 15 minutes on the phone and turned around afterwards at this rally and talked about the press and put their life in danger. when he talks like that, he is putting lives and families in danger and republicans do not hold him accountable. i am from south carolina, lindsey graham is from south carolina, he needs to be voted out. i would like for you to put up that clip when he was impeaching bill clinton, let the voters see how he felt then. why does he feel differently now? he is not for the people of south carolina, he is for donald trump. i have never been into politics,
but i will do everything i can to get people to vote him out and vote trump out. the rule of law went through the window. they don't honor the constitution anymore. host: if you called in, hang on the line. if you haven't, start dialing because the conversation continues. tom steyer will be here, hedge fund billionaire and activist. later, alan dershowitz, author of the book "the case against impeaching trump." host: the senate judiciary committee, here is from -- here's from william barr over the mueller report tomorrow. politico has a piece taking a look at what one legislator plans to ask. i will focus on part one of that report and russia and why they are not helping me get that .ecure elections report done that was senator amy klobuchar.
i will be harkening back to my obstruction questions because he said some things that were obstruction. senator klobuchar is running for president. nbc news has a piece taking a look on the house side there are questions of whether the attorney general was going to show up because of some of the format involved. it says are their options if someone does not show up? nbc highlights they have three methods of disposal to seek compliance under the doctrine of inherent contempt, they could send members of the security force to arrest and detain the witness. statute make it a crime to fail to comply with a lawful congressional subpoena and that leaves a third option, congress can seek a civil contempt citation from a judge. they could sue barr in district court.
hearing with william barr takes place tomorrow on the senate side. if you are interested in following, you can watch on c-span 3 starting at 10:00 and monitor at c-span.org and download and listen to it on our radio app. host: at our table, tom steyer to take your questions and comments on efforts to impeach the president. how much are you going to spend or have you spent so far and how much do you plan to spend going into 2020 on that effort? guest: i don't really know the answer to the question. i think we said we will spend whatever it took. how much am i going to spend? how long is it going to take question mark i don't know. it is a question of what can we do to make sure the american people are kept informed? what can we do to organize their voice to make sure in this question about impeachment that the voice of the american people is listened to.
really, it is their decision about what happened. host: it is up to the speaker of the house to decide that these articles of impeachment come to the floor. pelosi's standard for whether to move ahead on impeachment remains unmet. no republican lawmaker has joined democrats calling for the public to remove the president and public sentiment has not shifted in democrat investigators' favor. 60% are not in favor of moving forward with impeachment. guest: the thing that is going to move the american people, that is going to inform the american people is to allow them decision with televised hearings. we want all these people brought up so the american people can watch them explain what happened and react and come to a
conclusion regardless of partisanship. i believe the american people way to see this on tv the -- we will get emotional responses to the most corrupt president in american history. you are on the air with tom steyer. caller: actually, i am a democrat, but i also approve of impeaching. i must have called the wrong number. host: no problem, go ahead. caller: i think trump was behind the firing of comey. i also believe the meeting at the trump tower was definitely collusion because first of all, they all lied as to what the meeting was about. it was about other matters. thirdly, i think the republicans
better get on board with the truth because they are ruining their own party. look what happened in the house, of votes an avalanche -- people are going to start equating republicans with liars. first of all, i applaud all your sentiments. let's start with where we are. in my opinion, the argument is over as to whether this president obstructed justice. he clearly obstructed justice. i believe it is very clear for public information that it is corrupt and he takes money through his military operations from foreign companies and american companies under his jurisdiction. the argument about whether he met the criteria for impeachment is over. the question we keep reading about is what to do about it. the question is are we going to
allow the most corrupt president in american history to be above the law? that is the only question left. if we do, in effect, we are giving up on the idea of equal treatment under the law. camp.ntirely in your i don't believe speaker pelosi should wait for republicans to allow her to stand up for truth. i believe that is the only right thing to do and when the american people see through televised hearings what is going on, they will insist their representatives of whatever party do the right thing and remove this president. maryland,r marlboro republican imposing -- opposing impeaching. caller: good morning. how are you? i do not support the move and i think speaker pelosi is right that impeachment is off the table.
the reason being if democrats are so strong, so great, why don't you try to vote him out in the 2020 election? it is only two years from now. if you have the guts to do it, go ahead and do it. guest: if, in fact, the president is not removed before the 2020 election, i promise we will work very hard to defeat him in the election, you don't have to worry about that. there is something else going on here and that is whether or not we are going to establish the precedent that this corrupt behavior is fine, that a president can refuse to accept oversight from the congress and in effect, he has declared himself above the law. that is exactly what is going on right now. if, in fact, the congress of the united states decides to do nothing, they are setting a precedent forever that we have a
completely political situation -- completely different political situation then we have had. that is a rogue president deeply corrupt who disobeys the law, to thes his oath american people that he will put us before his own interest. if we decide to do that, it is a tragedy. if you look around the world at the places where we have this kind of corruption, you can see the results on their systems are devastating. i think we have a very simple question, we know this president is corrupt. the question is do we have the guts to do it -- do something about it? host: what is the evidence of corruption when robert mueller does not find him guilty in this report? caller: the -- guest: the mueller report does not deal with corruption at all.
the idea of corruption is that he would sell condos to foreign companies, rent floors of trump tower to foreign states. that people would use his real estate operations as an indirect way to pay him off for decision-making. if you look at the constitution, that kind of bribery is explicitly forbidden for a president. -- goes right to the heart of this presidency, the idea that he would put his own interest, his own money ahead of the interests of the american people is deeply offensive and dangerous. host: do democrats need to pay more attention to that talk or about what you claim is corruption by the president? guest: the two things we have
said for a year and a half of that we believe are obvious and open our obstruction of justice, if you read the mueller report, he lays it out clearly. the president is doing right now is refusing to meet subpoenas, refusing to allow administration officials to testify to congress, refusing to allow former administration officials to testify is obstruction of justice. we not only have it directly and clearly in the mueller report, but we have it live from the president himself. the idea that he did not get rid of his real estate operations, that people around the world buying hisws who is condos, who is renting his office space, renting his hotel rooms is something that is an open secret, everybody knows it. the daughter of the president of the democratic republic of congo bought a $7 million condo from
donald trump two weeks ago. if someone paid you $7 million, would it affect your decision-making? host: let's go to vivian in virginia. you support impeachment? i have got to push the button, sorry about that. start over. caller: thank you for taking my call. yes, i do support. it is plain as day in the media. the media is at fault, just like they were with the weapons of mass destruction. people in325 million the united states. what about us? this mayonnaise so corrupt. they said his family is not taking a salary, we are paying for their staff. it is plain. what has he done? gas.rday i paid $2.59 per when obama left, i paid $1.59.
what has he done? up.cost of health care, co-pays, up. medicine, up. what has he done? spew hate. these people hate so much they would rather see their country destroyed? , you aret me say this making a really important point that i entirely agree with. that is if you find someone with deep personal corruption, it always bleeds over into political corruption. there is never one cockroach. if you find a cockroach, you will find a nest of cockroaches. we have a president who corrupt through obstruction of justice and taking money through foreign countries and american companies . it bleeds over into political
decision-making in the most profound ways. you are talking about his use of vilification and racism for political purposes. we also see it in terms of his tax bill that was highly skewed to the biggest corporations and richest americans and his policy where he is putting everyone at risk denying science in an attempt please fossil fuel companies and political donors. what your point is i find dramatically important and that is when you find personal corruption, you will find political corruption right behind it and that is a devastating fact for every american. host: we will go to massachusetts. tim is watching, a republican. caller: good morning. oppose anwould impeachment proceeding and i do have issue with several of the things mr. steyer has been talking about. first of all, to conflate policy
disagreements with impeachment hearing is strange to say. talk about to corruption and collusion or anything like that, you are welcome to go through the mueller report, which found there was no underlying collusion. usually has to be an underlying crime for you to claim there has been an extraction -- obstruction. it to talk about foreign donors and things like that, i am sure we will find in the coming weeks more and more about hunter biden receiving millions of dollars from the ukrainian gas company while his father read -- withheld funds from the u.k. -- ukraine and gets the prosecutor fired. if you are really into fighting political corruption, you will have a lot to say about joe biden. you have a right to say whatever you want. let meet meet -- guest: say this. i don't believe mr. trump is
impeachable based on his political corruption. i believe he is impeachable based on personal corruption, i am sorry if i did not make that clear in the first place. i think there is something else going on when i talk about political corruption and that is denial of the truth. standslook at where he in energy policy, he is unwilling to accept scientific findings by scientists all over the world because it does not fit politically. if you look at his tax bill, he is unwilling to follow the facts from the last 40 years about what happens when you cut taxes the way he cut them and who benefits from them. there really is no argument. i am not saying he should be impeached based on policies i disagree with. i am saying the only thing he is impeachable for is obstruction of justice and corruption. what i am saying is his personal dishonesty and putting himself
ahead of the american people is entirely consistent with his political dishonesty where he is willing to exhort the truth and trumpet falsehoods for political advantage and that to me is why this is so urgent. you never see personal corruption like we are seeing without political corruption as well. the entire combination threatens our constitution and threatens the basis for democracy, which is trust. regardless of whether we disagree. if you and i disagree, i am fine with that as long as you are telling the truth and putting the american people first. then we can disagree on absolutely everything and that is democracy. if you are going to lie and put yourself ahead of the american people, i have a real problem with it because that destroys the entire basis for democratic conversation. host: george in tennessee, republican. caller: yes. top of the morning to you.
knowteyer, i would like to what is your problem with the president? did you have problems with him before he became president or this just something that happened january 2017? caller: i have absolutely no personal problem with the president, george. to me, i have no personal vindictive feeling toward him. if he can be removed from office, i have no interest in pursuing him after that. my concern is something completely different, which is, i feel as if we are in a very divided america, that we need to go back to a conversation that involves shared facts and shared values. i have traveled around this country for the last 6 years and what i found is democratic voters and republican voters and independent voters share the
same values overwhelmingly. to me, what is important is that our leaders go back to trying to address that and that we share a vision of what we are trying to do together in the 21st century where we are supporting each other and recognizing that each other's success helps us both. that we gooncerned back to an idealistic america where we lead the world and understand that by doing the right thing, we will not only be more just, we will be more prosperous, better paid, and we will do it together. by my realizing that your success is my success and you are realizing that my success is yours. host: bob, independent, you oppose impeachment. yeah, i do. i would like to say recently --
good morning to you all. recently, you guys did an expose or set up about the worst -- best of the worst presidents and you gave barack obama the number 12 spot. is he getting kudos for wiping him out? we spent more money than every president combined. you are talking about a c-span's new book, the president and it is based on a survey based on historians. historians rated president barack obama number 12. if you want to learn more, you can go to the website and find the book and learn more about it. what about your point on impeachment? caller: the impeachment, i don't understand it. everybody hates donald trump. this guy from day one has been
on his case and dogging him since he was elected. this man has all kinds of backward things he is doing, too, and when he starts this civil war, is he going to have somewhere to go hide with his guards? was: we lost bob, but that two calls in a row that wanted to know when you decided that you would spend your money and efforts to impeach this president? it was before the mueller report. what was it? guest: what i said, it has been a year and a half, october 20, 2017. it was clear to me from public information that this president was obstructing justice and putting money in his own pocket at the expense of the american people in a way that is explicitly forbidden by the constitution. we all know how divided america is and how troublesome that is for the country moving forward. i felt if you go back and look,
if we came together on the simplest values, that we don't believe in corruption, that we do believe in equal justice before the law, that the richest and most powerful americans as example five by this president also are subject to the rule of law, that is something we should be able to agree with regardless of where we live and regardless of what political party. this is about patriotism. i know if we remove this president, the next president will be a conservative republican from indiana. i don't agree with him on most policies. that doesn't matter. what we are talking about is a system that works going forward where we stand up in public for our deepest values. if we don't do that, that is a statement, too. people are talking about the risk of impeachment. impeachment is really an indictment, we want him to be tried.
it is not trying him, it is we want him to be tried. if we don't do that, that is a choice. people are asking like we either send him to the senate to be tried or not. actually deciding not to do that is a precedent and a statement of who we are and are we so scared to stand up for the most values, equal justice before the law and the truth? why is that scary? host: how many times have you made that argument to speaker pelosi? i have made that one in person. host: more than once? guest: i don't think so. host: what was her reaction? guest: i don't think it is ever appropriate to discuss what someone said to me in private, but i think speaker pelosi says in private what she says in public and i don't think it was different. i think she is consistent and i think she is evolving because
the facts are evolving. if you follow what she said in public, it has changed because the facts have changed. i am sure it is very hard for the speaker of the house to watch her branch of government be completely stonewalled by a president will -- where he will not allow anybody from the administration to go and testify on anything where he will not allow oversight, that there is no document he is willing to share where he sues, personally, the chairman of the house oversight committee. there is a level of contempt for congress that is so obvious, i am sure that puts her in a tough position because it certainly makes all the congresspeople aware of how the president and the administration feels toward that. host: tom in illinois, republican. steer: good morning, mr. yer. i have followed you in the news
when i have seen you on tv. thank you for letting me on. and i county board member am not satisfied with the way obama sent directives down to the county level that we had to vote on them. , youis impeachment thing said equal justice before the law. is he presumed innocent or presumed guilty? you in favoris are of going back and seeing where this dossier came from? are you in favor of going back and seeing where this thing started? it started from hillary clinton. are you in favor of having her bleached white and
utensils destroyed because she hid 30,000 emails? are you in favor of doing that to find the truth? host: let's get a response. guest: what i am interested in is the people of the united states being allowed to be treated fairly and their voice being heard. our voice being heard. right now, we have a president who is not putting the american people first, who is obstructing justice, and who is corrupt. i would not conflate that with clinton did, who is not in office, is not running an office, and whatever is true about her emails is a thing in the past. we are dealing with the existing president of the united states and what i am advocating is he be treated like an american citizen and not as somebody who , above thee law
oversight of congress who can do whatever he wants regardless of the impact. rs.tever happened with m clinton is not relevant now. when we remove trump from office, i will not spend my time worrying about him as a private citizen and whether he broke the law and has to suffer criminal prosecution. my concern is the american people be heard, that they be given the truth and -- in televised hearings so we can make up our mind and that the system itself be just and fair because this is a system which we all rely on and which we are going to have to rely on together to answer really basic questions. we have a dysfunctional federal government, if you have not noticed. this seems to be a very simple question, this is not a partisan question. do we believe in the rule of law for a sitting president? let's not conflate that with old
clinton true,mrs. false, or in the middle. let's deal with issues on the table relevant for all americans and who we are and set examples for our children that we have real values that we stand up for. when the chips are down, america's do the right thing. a democrat.nessee, you impose the impeachment process. , i am totally confused about it. it for they should give five weeks and the way he is blocking everything, i think they should go ahead and do something because he will ride it out all the waita 2020. he was so transparent, why would he not allow any investigation of any kind? block thehe try to
banks and things? this man is running scared. host: what do you feel about that, give it four or five weeks and let it play out? guest: i definitely agree and i am afraid i did not catch that caller's name perfectly. i apologize. i definitely agree this man is running scared. a step back for one second and think about a president of the united states who calls people th in front under oa of his justice department rats who says people who refuse thate to testify or lie our stand up good guys. we all know where that language comes from. we have all watched crime movies. that is exactly the attitude of a very guilty criminal. we are seeing behavior that is absolutely consistent with a criminal mindset, criminal behavior, and criminal guilt.
every single time we see it, people keep saying, is he within his rights? you have to ask those questions. that is appropriate. we also have to ask ourselves, why have we seen this president for two years obstruct justice? because he is innocent? i don't think so. no tofrank, you same moving forward on impeachment. caller: yes. mr. stier says we need more public hearings. we have already had public hearings for the last two and a half years. with that public house hearings, senate hearings. we have had adam schiff reading passages from the dossier into the public record, which is never been verified. steyer thinks this is going to convince the american people that trump should be impeached. how many more publicans do you
need? you have the mullah report that shows there is no obstruction of justice or collusion. you go through those 10 items in the mueller report, none of them prove obstruction of justice. that is why he was not indicted. host: robert mueller did not say he was guilty of these 10 incidents of obstruction. guest: what he said, and i forced myself to read the mall report so i could answer this question. host: 448 pages. guest: what he said is it is justice department policy not to indict a sitting president. i am not going to say anyone is guilty, including this president, if they are not allowed to then go into a court of law and defend themselves in short order because otherwise i am basically a prosecutor, and there is no other side. i am not saying he is innocent, and here are the facts. those facts are very damming.
that is my first point. it is a case that he did obstruct justice. we have had one hearing that has to do with the president's corruption and obstruction. it was michael cohen. it did move people. that was the one hearing we have had into an half years that moved people's views on impeachment 6%. think back to the brett kavanaugh hearing. americans saw that very differently. that is democracy. we got a chance to see what was really going on and to react to it. we have really only had in the last year two hearings where you could see real people in real time. americans tuned in. i asked people, if we got mcgann, the former white house counsel, would you watch it? yes. there,got donald junior
would you watch it? if you got jared kushner, would you watch it? yeah. i don't think we can expect 320 million americans to read a 448 page legal document in their spare time. they don't have spare time. what they will do is tune into the biggest soap opera of history. diego,ichael, san republican, supporting impeachment. caller: yes. thank you. good morning. steyer, i agree that donald trump has done things to deserve impeachment. the you think that all the -- do you think that all the republican senators that lineup behind pence to lick donny's
boots will convict him? host: you need 20. guest: i take your point. the people i am counting on are the people of the united states, not the senators. i believe are for the people of the united states see what is happened and see it on tv and feel it in their bones, we will make a decision. it will not be a partisan decision. i trust republicans in this country to have real values and to be decent people. i think they are going to watch this, and they will come to the conclusion that it is not ok, just as you have. i believe that is the most important power. i'm a democrat with a small d. i want the power to the people. i want us to be able to make this. if we decide that what has happened is wrong and the president should be removed, those senators will have to listen to us. that is the process i believe in. i believe in the voice and the
mind and the values of the american people. i believe elected officials will have to listen to us. that is what i have been pushing for televised hearings. host: which of the candidates in the democratic field running against the president do you think makes the best opponent? guest: i think we don't even know what the field is yet, greta. we have not had a chance for the ones that have announced, i think 20 people, to lay out their policies and explain. i think it is not just policies, it is their priorities. if you are going to be a president, and you have 19 different policy positions, that is great. we know you're not going to get to 19 different policy priorities. beto o'rourke laid out his policy priorities.
decide.o early to from my standpoint, what we're looking for in a presidential candidate is this positive vision. what is it to be an american in the 21st century? what are the rights in the 21st century of american citizens so we understand why we are safe and our families are safe, and we can create the future we want t. host: is there a democrat that is not in the race yet that you want to run? guest: there are lots of great people. i don't think it is good to stop at 20. there are definite several people who are still talking about joining this race who have not. stillnny thing is, it is april of 2019. normally at this time, americans are thinking about the nba
finals or the stanley cup playoffs, not 18 months ahead to the presidential election. host: would you ever run? guest: i have said all along that i would do whatever i thought would have the most positive impact. i really would do anything. i think we are in clearly a political crisis. it.ink people hate to admit it is painful. we are in a situation where we honestly have a rogue president who is deeply corrupt, and we are struggling with oversight of that president. we are struggling with a dysfunctional federal government . if you think about it, we are the only country in the world that is not part of the terrorist climate accords. we have -- paris climate accords. we have 11 million people living undocumented. we have a gun violence
problem that has been going on for a long time. in new zealand, they had one incident of gun violence, and they solved in nine days. we have a government that cannot come together and trust each other and get things done. the basic stuff that you would expect would be solvable. i think there is a real question about hanley share a vision -- can we share a vision of who we are and what we are trying to do and accept each other as fully american? from that foundation build the kind of america we all want. i think people think it is either impeachment or deal with the future. we have to prove that as americans we can come together on the basic values. we all care about the same things. americans are deeply generous and brave and compassionate. we need to go back to that and
stop tearing each other apart. host: you still could get into this race? you said you would do whatever it takes. guest: i would. if there was some reason i felt like it was the answer. we are sitting with 20 people in the race and more to come. they are just starting to talk about what they stand for. host: we will go to jeanette, washington, d.c. you are against moving forward on impeachment. caller: yes. as much as my heart is with you on wanting to impeach the president, i think the aftereffects of impeachment would be even worse for this country. i think we need to do our due diligence and have facts and an explanation and reason of who and what happened before we get to a conclusion on we need to get rid of the president.
illinoisgentleman from , people do have their own facts and beliefs. as long as we are this divided, going straight to impeachment would be so detrimental to the country. i think we need to give democracy a chance to work. that is why waiting until the election is the better idea. we need to know what happened. he is like a celebrity president that we want to vote off the island. we just cannot do that. ,f you look around the world everybody is so chaotic that their governments in democracies are not working. we need to figure out why this happened, how we can prevent it in the future and commit to solving it. we can learn so much from this. if it happened once, it can happen again. guest: i think you said a couple
of things. one was that we are jumping to impeachment. the impeachment process is really a series of hearings to get to the facts that you are talking about so that the congress can make a decision on bether the president should tried in the senate. it is the democratic process in the constitution to do what you are talking about, to get the facts to the american people so that we can all see what happened and then decide whether he should be tried in the senate. it is not jumping to a conclusion. it is setting in motion the process you are describing and that the founders contemplated for a corrupt president like we have now. you are comparing us to england, where i suppose what you're talking about is the decision to leave the european union, so-called brexit.
i would say it is comparable. i would say that is a good point. i would not limit it to england. we are seeing the kinds of nationalism that mr. trump represents, us against the rest of the world, and the kind of specific nationalism that breaks down on racial and ethnic boundaries. we are seeing that around the world. it is a response, i think, to not having a communist enemy. it is a retreat from the idea that the world will progress cooperatively as opposed to completely competitively. when the president says america first, he is saying we don't cap allies. he is saying -- don't have allies. he is saying we don't have people we cooperate with. a dramatically
important and devastatingly stupid point. when you think about how you are successful, think about your own life and your own community. the way things get done, the way good things happen is when people put aside their self-interest and work together to make things better for everybody. that is what we were doing traditionally with our allies around the world. we understood we had shared interests, and we would do better working together. this kind of nationalism, self-interest, and disregard for that mr. trump displays in the united states, he also displays outside the united states. it is leading us to a very dangerous situation and is contrary to the kind of leadership that america has provided around the world for over 100 years. heis basically saying to
ck with the rest of you. you are on your own. we are on our own. justice we believe in and freedom and democracy, and we will leave that movement around the world. lead that movement around -- we will lead that movement around the world. to try to stick to the truth as much as possible. hand tocross on my remind myself that if you tell the truth, it will work out. it may take 2000 years, but if you stick to the truth, that is what you should be doing. you should not compromise on that even in the face of any kind of opposition or attack. host: is this something you do everyday? guest: pretty much. host: thank you for the conversations. we will continue to take your
phone calls on efforts to impeach president trump. then we will talk to alan dershowitz, author of the book the case against impeaching trump. returners of congress today. the hill reporting on reaction going into the week, there are more people talking about it and more favorable toward that movement. more people are willing to do what the speaker said, the former chair of the congressional black caucus. we need to allow these committees to proceed with their work. jared huffman of california he has carved the distinction between those lawmakers calling for impeachment articles to be brought immediately and others who are pushing to launch an impeachment inquiry, calling it disregard the
process altogether. we have to stop tiptoeing around this issue. called the greatest show on earth, he writes this about the presidents response to impeachment, saying trump is liberated to fight like a caged animal. partisann flat out combat. this is his element. despite all the press coverage of the past two years, he has handled every controversy no matter how personal or treacherous with the same straightahead aggression. donald trump is almost certainly better prepared for war with the house then he was to get substantial achievements out of the republican house. now we go back to your calls on impeachment. host: if you support the idea of
impeaching the president, (202) 748-8000. .f you oppose, (202) 748-8001 debbie in ohio. you oppose. go ahead. caller: good morning. i do oppose. i think the president's policies are helping our country. he wanted reciprocal trade. american people have been taken advantage of for so many years. hillary, kamala harris, and he is a communist. he wants the public to get involved because he was the one, and the democrats, that want to do away with our constitution. they are the one that is causing all this violence. they picked on the trump supporters because they did not want obama. he spoke of new zealand. john podesta was in new zealand
before that shooting started. they are radical. she is part of the deep state. he is a communist, writing his notes down so he can have information, trying to rile up the public. the president is innocent. host: debbie's thoughts in ohio. michelle in michigan, republican. you oppose. caller: definitely. i would have liked to say a few things to mr. steyer. i can see them now i guess. president trump is not a politician. that is why he was voted into office. he is not another corrupt politician. he is proving himself. he has done what he said he would say would do in the first years in office. i just don't get it. i don't understand what it is people find so distasteful about this man.
steyer had absolutely nothing specific to say about why he would impeach this man. host: he talked about the president, the trump company selling condos and real estate to foreign entities, the re, what of interest the he called corruption. do you have any concerns about that? caller: no, none whatsoever. from what i understand, this is being handled by his sons or other members of his family. he is not going to let his business fall apart because he is president of the united states. he has other people to pick this up. host: what about the 10 of obstruction of justice laid out by robert mueller in the report?
that is something else mr. stey er referred to. caller: i have not read it. i have not heard anybody say what these 10 points are. i would like to hear that. host: we can put those up for you. reports's response to of russian support for the president. president's reaction to the continuing russian investigation. presidents termination of comey. the appointment of a special counsel to remove him. further evidence to have the attorney general take control of the investigation. you can find all these and read it for yourself if you go to the mueller report volume two. caller: i have seen this stuff. comey should have been tossed out under obama, not trump. i don't think i am the only one that has that feeling. from what i am looking at, i can
see the conduct towards flint. that is an impeachable offense? itt: i encourage you to read yourself, the mueller report. is that something you will do? caller: absolutely. is it on your website? host: i think so. i think you can find it there, c-span.org. democrat, to galen, oppose moving forward on impeachment. caller: thank you for taking my call. not a democrat anymore. they have completely lost their minds. far, itt i have seen so is just an attempt by the left to change the results of an election. the 10 points you're running down they want to impeach him, let's start with this.
michael flynn, innocent man set up by sally eight. sally yates. -- said, theyat comey entrapped him. the fbi agent who interviewed him said he didn't think he lied. during the transition, he has every right to talk to kislyak on the phone. they were listening in. he did not get it quite right. the rest of them are just trying to find a reason to impeach him. isinnocent man, mr. steyer dead wrong, is going to rant and say i am innocent. that is what an innocent man does. host: jerry in new york, democrat. good morning.
caller: i am totally for impeachment. when he took the oath of office, he took an oath to be the president of the united states. as a new yorker, we have seen him work is corruption through the years. i don't want to go on and on. this is our constitutional right. we have 70 articles that week -- so many articles that we can impeach. he is in contempt of the people of the united states. 19 73.ity did it in we need to keep out democracy. we have populism all over the planet. he is a friend of putin. we need to impeach. this is what we need to do to keep our democracy.
i hope our democratic congress gets there. i hope people will come to realize if they read the mueller report. it is all there. downe have gotten bogged from the media that do not support the democrats. that's what i want to say. virginia, in independent. you support the idea. was not innitially support of impeachment. i felt like this is a big boondoggle. honestly, donald trump is going to play it to his crazy base, which seems more mentally unhinged by the day. as time has gone on, and i read the mueller report, there are pretty big precursors to crime. they are not proof, but they are precursors. we should have an investigation.
that investigation should say should the president be impeached for those things. all these people who do not read the mueller report and feel they are opinionated without reading the evidence, it seems crazy to me. why don't you actually read? i feel so sad how uninformed people are. look at the precursors to crime. they cannot investigate everything because people did not talk. stoogesrump has loyal who will not put him under. we have to investigate. if he is found guilty, impeach. congress's job. oklahoma,n, republican opposing impeachment. in my 65 years, that is the first time i have been called mentally unhinged stooge.
putin would come down for anyone that was against hillary clinton. clinton and obama interfered in his election. biden,tioned clinton or all they do, that doesn't matter anymore, and i don't know why being a traffic has turned into nationalism anymore. have people look at our schools under obama? homeless americans. let the illegals come in. we make sure they are house. our planes were falling out of the sky. i guess they celebrated every time a military guy died one more american military guy not around. at least they get up and go to work every day and earn every penny.
on the tax cut, people say it is just for the rich. my son-in-law drives a truck. he works hard. is paycheck, every two weeks $150 more under this tax cut. that is $300 a month. i know that may not be much to mr. steyer who looks like a rich, petty man. he called our president a guilty president and then was smiling and laughing about it. comey, he should have been fired. he flip-flopped all the way around. he had a private conversation with the president and then got it leaked to get this all started. thiss a set up to harass president because we dared not
vote for their queen hillary. michelle independent. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i appreciate the forum. the opposedall line. trump impeach president forthe line has been busy the last 20 or 25 minutes. i had to call the support line, which i am not in support of impeachment at all. i feel congress and everyone else is not listening to the majority of americans. processthis impeachment because they are just wasting taxpayer money at this time. i feel there is no credible report that shows without a doubt that president trump has
done anything wrong. it is a witchhunt to find every little thing that is wrong. there are so many things in this world that we can concentrate on, especially in the united states of america. we are not doing that. we are simply going after goodne who is trying to do for the american people. congress, they are not listening to anyone but themselves. we are to continue on this topic with alan dershowitz, the author of the book, the case against impeaching donald trump keep the calls coming in on this idea of them credit efforts to defeat the president. campaignome news on 2020. >> good morning america this morning had an interview jill biden.
saying he was asked about his motto, jill biden said make america moral again, the dignity of the country, the dignity of the people in this division that is being taken to aggrandize power. joe biden says it would be presumptuous to discuss a running mate right now it will be a government that will represent everyone. i have not made that decision. into notes came writing an op-ed discussing an uncomfortable situation she had with joe biden. joe biden in the apologies that were not. she writes women finally began finding their individual voices in the security of the collective course and tapped into a newfound power that has demanded accountability, and offenders were wonderful and
easy to spot. villains were forced to acknowledge their actions. then there was joe biden, not a alsoin, not unlikable, but not exactly sorry either. more of that available at the new york times. host: joining us from new york this morning's alan dershowitz, professor at harvard law school and author of the book the case against impeaching trump. you wrote in reaction to the release of the redacted mueller report, both sides want something and lost something, on balance, donald trump won more. explain. job has been to maintain the rule of law in nature whatever we do is insistent with the constitution. i am a liberal democrat who strongly supported hillary clinton. i strongly opposed the election of donald trump.
i read the report very closely. i wrote an introduction to it, which is now available. in the introduction, i make the point of distinguishing between sin and crime. the report is filled with sins allegedly committed by donald trump people around him. it does not cross the line to crime area when it comes to legal vindication, donald trump wins. he wins on illegal conspiracy with russia. there is no evidence of that. the attorney general, who has the ultimate decision is 30 made the decision he had not crossed a line to obstruction of justice i think he lost on the issue of political sin, and people have the right to take that into account the deciding who to vote for the 2020 election. isant to make sure that line maintained. forve tremendous admiration mr. steyer.
his passion is evident. i always propose the shoe on the other foot test. if hillary clinton had been elected, and she were subject to these best editions and impeachment, what would people be saying about her? writeoriginally going to a book called the case against impeaching hillary clinton. i thought she was going to be elected. republicans have sworn to impeach her on day one. i would have made the same arguments. what tom steyer told her audience earlier. [video clip] in my opinion, the argument is over as to whether this president obstructed justice. if you read the report, he clearly obstructed justice. i believe it is very clear public information that he is corrupt. he takes money through his real
estate operations from foreign countries and american companies that are under his jurisdiction. i believe the argument about whether he has met the criteria for impeachment is over. the question that is facing us is what to do about it. the question is, are we going to allow the most corrupt president in american history to be above the law? that is the only question left. if we do, we are giving up on the idea of equal treatment under the law. host: your reaction? guest: i certainly agree the argument is over. i think it is over the other way. i don't think the case of obstruction of justice has been laid out. need tocrime, you elements. you need the illegal act and the illegal intent. the illegal acts alleged against president trump are all authorized under the
constitution. firing comey. it is the same george h.w. bush did. pardoned weinberger on the eve of the iran-contra trial. you cannot obstruct justice if you engage in a constitutionally authorized act. as far as obstruction is concerned, when the framers of our constitution debated the impeachment criteria, they rejected ideas of corruption and demanded for a president to be preached, he had to be guilty of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. steyer can point to specific high crimes and misdemeanors, they are going to fall into the clinton trap. clinton was wrongly in peace.
clinton may have committed a crime, but it was not a high crime. what president trump may have done was maybe high, but it was not a crime. it should be difficult to prosecute somebody for a crime. unfortunately, we have laws like obstruction of justice that are loose and open ended. every civil libertarian should be concerned about open-ended laws that are capable of being used in a discretionary way against people you don't like. i asked the viewers to ask yourself, if hillary clinton were president, and it came up with comparable evidence, what side would you be on? would you be seeking to expand the law of obstruction of justice. would you be seeking to expand the criteria of obstruction of justice? host: do you see that equation
changing as the administration and the president refuses to comply with subpoenas from congress, from these committees themheir chair, suing personally. does the equation change? host: -- guest: this is a good test of our system of checks and balances. congress clearly has the power under its oversight authority and authority to legislate to subpoena witnesses, including witnesses from the white house. the president also has the authority to invoke executive privilege. it is up to the courts to claims of the legislature against the claims of the executive. i think we will see that. i think many of the subpoenas will be validated. some may not be. i lived through mccarthyism. our member congress exceeding
its legitimate authority in the courts stepping in. and the courts stepping in. your purpose is to intimidate, not to legislate or oversight. i think we will see an interplay of the three branches of government. host: edward, go ahead. edward, you have got to turn down the tv and talk to the phone. caller: thank you. host: go ahead. to mr. my question dershowitz is why doesn't he wait until barr testifies to congress and mueller testifies to congress before he comes to the conclusion on the exception
case?tice guest: it's a good point. people have been telling me to wait from day one. i have been waiting. it is the other side that has been calling for impeachment from day one. had there been no call for impeachment, i would have waited. i did way too right my introduction until the mueller report came out. you cannot wait forever to respond. when people call for impeachment and call for prosecution and claim obstruction of justice, i have to respond. i am prepared to wait with the other side is prepared to wait. i am not going to remain silent while people try to violate the rule of law. i would be as vocal if it were hillary clinton may be more vocal. i supported hillary clinton. i'm a liberal democrat. i want to see democrats win elections. i voted for the democrats in the midterm elections. for me this is not partisan.
host: what will you be listening for when the attorney general testifies tomorrow before the senate judiciary committee and possibly we hear from don mcghan or robert mueller? host: the first question for is why did you get an incomplete? why did he not decide to make a to obstructionas of justice? why did he only do half the job? that is the hardest to obstructn of question robert mueller has to answer. is concerned, he has answer why he came to the conclusion that there is insufficient evidence for obstruction of justice. n will be asked didn't he
feel he had a responsibility to protect some of the confidences while he was counsel to the white house. there will be discussion about the episode where he and the president apparently had a disagreement and people will have to make a decision about who is more accurate. was he told specifically to fire mueller? the president had complete authority to fire mueller, just like nixon had complete authority to fire archie. it was totally lawful. the president under the terry executive has the authority to fire anybody. that was decided by the supreme court after the andrew johnson impeachment that failed by one vote. teve, go ahead. caller: you know, this man was already tainted before we even put him in office. for republicans to complain it
is going to cost so much money to pull this man out of office, they never about one minute of wasting $35 million to impeach president clinton. all we received was a large bill and a stained dress in the smithsonian. i agree with you. it was a complete waste of time to impeach clinton. i think republicans have learned a lesson from it. i think reasonable democrats have learned a lesson, too. that is why nancy pelosi and chuck schumer are resisting calls from extremists to impeach because it will turn out to hurt the democrats. it will cost millions of dollars and raise serious questions under the constitution. vote for who you want to in the 2020 election, but don't try to compromise the constitution. let the constitution do the work that elections were intended to
do. host: we're continuing our conversation on efforts to impeach president trump. if you are republican, (202) 748-8001. democrats (202) 748-8000. independents (202) 748-8002. margaret in florida, independent. caller: good morning. i am so excited,, professor dershowitz. i love you. i think you are such a voice of reason. i recommend everyone read the mueller report. i think an informed public is a safer voting public. i am very disappointed. on. again, mr. steyer comes the conversation about the cross on his hand, are you kidding me? this guy had investments in coal powered things all over the world.
he is legislating morality as usual. professor dershowitz, i agree with you. i think it is so dangerous. i do not agree with the impeachment of bill clinton. vote in moral people, we will never have anybody in office. i don't understand why now barr is the target. barr has a great reputation. he read the report. greta, you put up the facts about the conclusions to do with obstruction of justice. just because those facts were there, he was allowed to fire comey. robbers and state wanted him to fire comey. i am not a lover of donald trump. i think he is arrogant and not humble. i voted for him. i don't think he is evil. i was not a fan of hillary clinton. i think the hypocrites in
washington that allow all the things that go on, all the sins, this is a hit job. i respect you. i think c-span is showing its true liberal colors more and more. go ahead. guest: first of all, i disagree. i think c-span does a wonderful job. i think it does strike the appropriate balance. i wish cnn and others were more like c-span. i think we need c-span all over the country so that people can hear all sides of the issue and can have rational conversations instead of screaming at each other. is concerned, i think he was right on the merits. i wish he had waited to have his press conference until after the report was released so he could be asked questions about the report.
my view is that it was a mistake to have the press conference and then release the report. that is a tactical decision. on the merits, i think he was right that the case from structure was not made. people can debate those instances. i just tweeted a challenge to judge napolitano on fox who disagrees with me. i said, let's go on television and have a reasonable debate. we are lacking that in this country. people will just pick sides. if you say anything that turns out to help donald trump, even though i am a supporter of hillary clinton, you are perceived on donald trump's side . we have to get back to the time when we can agree to disagree about reasonable issues that reasonably divide americans. host: we will go to deborah next, texas, democrat. caller: good morning.
my problem is, i have one problem i would like to ask everyone. how does a president in the united states of america can get away with telling 10,000 lies? that is unheard of. i think that alone is impeachable, and something should be done about it. if that had been president, believe me, he would have been out from day one if he had lied 10,000 times. guest: i think you ought to suggest amending the constitution and suggest an amendment that allows impeachment and removal for a certain number of lies. i don't know how many presidents would have been impeached under that criteria. lyndon johnson certainly lied to me about vietnam. other presidents have lied over the years. the framers of the constitution rejected those criteria. we have the longest surviving
constitution in the history of the world. we ought to respect the constitution. the constitution provides for specific grounds of impeachment and removal. this is a fascinating story in history. alexander hamilton, who helped the constitution, committed a crime when he was secretary of the treasury. andubmitted to extortion made it a go three. it was not a high crime. accused, he wrote an essay in mating -- admitting adultery. he knew the difference between a low crime and a high crime. i think we should look at that to give us some guidance. host: do you see any action by
the president related to the mueller report or unrelated that could be high crimes? guest: i do not. and ite were high crime was obvious like the nixon case. i supported impeachment of richard nixon because he offered oney tooney to -- hush m federal witnesses in front of the grand jury. it president trump or any other president were to cross those line and move over the into a section of justice or , i wouldr treason favor impeachment. i have been teaching criminal law for 50 years. part of my job has been to distinguish between prologues to crime and actual crime. , everything is legal
unless this specifically criminalize. in the former soviet union, everything was illegal unless it was specifically allowed by the law. we don't want to move to a system where prosecutors have discretion on how to expand the law to cover political operators that they oppose. if this were hillary clinton, what would people be saying? host: republican. caller: good morning, mr. dershowitz. i always wanted to talk to you. you said you read the mueller report. there's two parts to it. the second part is the volume to mostly ofts political results. wroteyou say wiseman
forsecond part, flynn the same situation. arthur andersen lost all those jobs for good american citizens. it all looks political. it is all smoke and mayors. it is really getting to me. could you please explain wiseman's contribution to this? guest: wiseman is a professional prosecutor. i have had cases against him. he is very top. -- tough. i suspect he had a major hand in writing the second volume. my own is that one of the reasons robert mueller did not come down with the final decision on obstruction of justice is that have enormous respect for his staff members who probably did include that the president did not cross the
line into obstruction. robert mueller may or may not have believed that. maybe he will be asked that, and maybe he willrobert mueller mayy . wiseman is going to be a law professor. we will see where his career goes. he served in government for many years. his reputation was as a tough and zealous prosecutor, not only in this case but in many of the other cases. gaithersburg. rights i am a civil lawyer. i am asking a question with regards to why you believe there needs to be a higher standard of high crimes for the impeachment
when a misdemeanor is not defined as a high crime, but it is the basis upon which impeachment can be had. when donald trump made intements regarding africa d.c., there is a law, and it is a misdemeanor to disrupt a white house or any meeting that results in obstruction of a meeting, and that is a misdemeanor. if you are focused on the specific elements of activity, he has already committed many misdemeanors. i'm not clear why you're not focusing on those and are only .ocusing on the high crimes guest: the constitution says high crimes and misdemeanors. virtually every
constitutional scholar agrees that high modifies not only crimes but misdemeanors. forcould be executed committing a misdemeanor. any statute and the district of columbia that would prohibit the president from saying the disgustihi said about african countries would be unconstitutional. anybody has the right to describe any country in any words they choose. i don't think the president has ,ommitted any high misdemeanors any impeachable offenses. i think the word misdemeanor has to be understood as it was at the time of the framing of the constitution, which is a serious crime. the word high modifies misdemeanors. it does not say high crimes or
misdemeanors. andys high crimes misdemeanors. beverly in california. democratic caller. caller: good morning. i have a couple of things. i hope i have time to be able to express them. one of the things i find during theis that trump administration there have been so many obvious things that are nonconstitutional, that are violating the constitution. says,etoric, things he his lies. on these things alone, i don't see where there is no constitutional scholar that constitutes him breaking a law. it seems utterly ridiculous. guest: .21.
point to a law -- point to one. point to a law he broke. caller: that is what i am saying. for example when he had the russians in the oval office the first week he was in and would not allow any american reporters in the room. i thought how is that even possible? how is that not a nonpolitical move to do something like that? guest: it is not a crime. caller: he turned the narrative willd one day and said i talk to robert mueller, and yet he never gave testimony. he wanted to answer some questions from but we have not heard what donald trump's testimony was during the investigation. there shall
it's disappointing that -- mr. dershowitz is pointing out those are not crimes. guest: you want to amend the constitution. let me throw back at you. i think president obama violated the constitution when he signed the iran-contra -- the iran nuclear deal. the constitution requires two thirds of the senate to approve a treaty. i believe it was a treaty. notident obama circumvented only the constitutional obligation to have the senate support treaties but circumvented the senate. there was never about by the senate, by the house, by the american people. the president violated the constitution. it was not an impeachable offense. i would never have supported impeachment.
caller: he made an executive decision to do that. if you remember, that was the do-nothing congress. they were not signing off on anything he was doing. i'm just talking about with all the constitutional scholars, it has to come down to whether or sayyou committed a crime to this is inappropriate behavior. guest: inappropriate is not good enough. caller: to not have anyone there to take notes. host: i'm good to have mr. dershowitz jump in. guest: you should amend the constitution. you have to have today bribery, treason, and other high crimes and misdemeanors. just deciding on who you want to vote for our political reasons. none of them constitute impeachable reasons.
my job as a constitutional lawyer is to make sure that very important that very important line between political sense and federal crimes is always complied with. because if you can impeach president trump for doing what you suggest, you can impeach a democratic president for the same thing. every president would be subject to impeachment. remember when hillary clinton looked election she was going to win the presidency, republicans said they would impeach her on one. i wish that had happened because i support hillary clinton, and it would be much more popular with my liberal democratic friends if i had written a case called -- a book called -- the case against impeaching hillary clinton. i wrote the same book, but it is about donald trump. complying withon
neutral, bipartisan principles, and that would mean i would make enemies on both sides. i think it is important to maintain the shoe on the other , regardless of who is the president tim, a republican. it is your turn. . caller: good morning. i want to say thank you for your balanced approach regarding the subject. thaton the left believe their hatred and politics entitles them to impeach mr. trump. this has been going on for two years. i thought after the mueller report, who they said they trusted, would come to an end. it hasn't. now it is turning into them across used type of situation -- turning into a maccarthyist teva situation. the constant drumbeat from the
likes of cnn and msnbc that is also like propaganda, that feeds into the narrative of the left has made them disappointed when they finally find out that mr. trump has not colluded, in fact. i would just end by saying -- i think they will find out the shoe was on the other foot and it will boomerang. the real collusion will come from the other side. and there is much evidence it the futureing out of days to be support -- there is much evidence that will be coming out of the future days to support that? guest: i will defend the other side. for me, the standards always have to be the same. you have to cross the line into criminal behavior, you have to show our criminal act, criminal
intent, or impeachable high crime and misdemeanor. i think both sides have weaponize the criminal justice system for political purposes, both sides have weaponize impeachment. and i am there, smack in the middle, to prevent either side from abusing the rule of law and undercutting the constitution. we have a great institution and legal system, let us keep it intact. let us not let our hatred for particular people on one side of the other under cap our great institution and great rule of law. host: what about robert mueller not interviewing the president himself to get at the question of intent? there was no way the president was going to submit to an interview. his lawyers would never have allowed him to do it. in 55 years of practicing law, i have never allowed a suspect or a person under investigation to speak to a prosecutor or testify in front of a grand jury.
it is much too easy to fall into a perjury trap. remember, innocent people can fall into perjury traps. , and someone else, a witness would have been turned against you says y even if x is true, you can be indicted for perjury. him clinton's lawyer walked into a perjury trap and he ended up eating disbarred and impeached as a result of testifying. he never should have testified i advised him on television not to testify. he rejected my advice. i advised on television, trump, don't fire,fy -- don't pardon, don't treat, and not testify. he listened to three of them, but not the one about tweeting? caller: here i am calling from the middle of america which is not just a place on the mark
map, but a place in the heart and mind. i would like to bring up the reference to thinking about central intelligence agency ulles, having said, don't worry, the american people don't read. i would like to put forth three books for mr. daschle woods to respond to, for the american people to begin reading so that we can restore the republican rule of law. one is called roof of collusion, how trump betrayed america. it goes from the russian collusion aspects to the middle eastern -- guest: as you know, i have fought over and over again with abramson. he is a former student, and we disagree. books and cometh to your decision. that is what freedom of speech
is all about. host: what is the second book? caller: it is called house of trump, house of putin. it talks about the russian background and how it intersects with trump's financial background, which is maybe why he is fighting deutsche bank at this very moment and fighting with his taxes. howthird book is red mafia. america by mob -- the late great robert friedman. there is a time in their where wholieutenant of -- intersects between russian and israeli crime networks has his whenenant in trump tower the fbi's look at for him. i urge the american people to find out what is really going on
here, and they will not get it from either the mainstream media or the alternative media. i appreciate the time, and i as the american people to get their information. guest: i think you have to read skeptically and critically. . you can't only read one side of the issue. the problem is that so many people read only on one side. i wonder if the caller has read my book -- against impeaching trump -- or maybe she doesn't want to read against his narrative. for every three books recommended on one side, there should be three others recommended on the other side, so you can approach the problem in a balanced way. host: mr. dershowitz wrote his book before the mueller report -- the case against impeaching trump. the also wrote the intro to the mueller report, which you can find as well. gloria in chestnut ridge, missouri. democratic line. ? caller: hello.
mr. dershowitz, i would like to our democrats and our democrats and/or republicans can make laws like -- like open borders and not let us vote on that. it causes all kinds of problems like distribution of land, allocating money to them without us voting for it. we have no say so. if our government is supposed to represent us and then asks us not to vote on this, i think that is illegal. what do you have to say. ? guest: of course you get to vote on it. you get to vote for your congressman or woman, for your senator, and your president. of us for a person is a vote on an issue. you should vote for people who support your point of view.
every two years, you get the right to do that. if you stay home, you can't complain. if you vote, you had input. we don't have a referendum on everything. it is rare federally to have any kind of referendum. california has referendums all the time, there are arguments for and against referendums, but you get to vote for members of congress. and if anybody tries to stop you from voting, that in itself is a crime covered by voting rights law. i wish the supreme court would be more aggressive in protecting the right to vote. unfortunately, the trump administration has cut back on some of the protections on the right to vote, i oppose that. i oppose many policies of the trump administration -- it's a immigration policies, tax policies, policies on a woman's right to choose, on gay marriage. down the line, i am a liberal democrat on virtually every
issue, but i don't allow my partisan politics to intrude on my analysis on the constitutional rule of law. host: what questions do you have for the attorney general barr, when he testifies tomorrow morning before the senate judiciary committee? guest: i would like to know what went into his decision to conclude there was not enough to charge the president with obstruction. i would like to know the process he went through with rod rosenstein. the other question i would like to ask is whether or not he believes rod rosenstein should have been recused from the case. he was an essential witness. in the report, rosenstein comes out fine because they minimize his role in the firing of comey. i think people are entitled to ask whether that is an accurate role,ment of rosenstein's because he played a role in overseeing the special counsel's report and he had a stake in how his. role as described i think the ise of rosenstein
something that should be andessed to all witnesses, i hope rosenstein himself will be asked the question of why he did not recuse himself when he knew he would be a central witness. if the president had been charged with obstruction for firing comey, which i don't believe he could be, but if he had been charged, rosenstein might have been charged as a co-conspirator. if you are a potential witness, how do you serve as the acting attorney general and don't recuse yourself? i think he was more recusable than the prior attorney general who recused himself. it remains a very difficult, unanswered question. host: allen -- or with -- allender shorts, thank you for the conversation this morning. guest: thank you. host: you can watch the deputy attorney general answering c-span, c-span.org, or the free radio app.
we will take a break, and we will come back with fred shelti from kaiser health news. but first, some news. >> it democrat from washington sent out a tweet this morning saying today is the day, the house rules committee are holding the first-ever congressional hearing on medicare for all, watch history happen live, and she put a link as to where you can see it. on bloomberg's opinion section, they talk about today's hearing and say -- people who use medicare for all mean two different things. there is the idea, a proposal that medicare should be mandatory, medicare for all whether they like it or not, then come up there is the idea that some people who should be able to buy into medicare for all if they wanted. on the one of them can be managed without large of people. medicare for all would up he the
medicare industry. more about if you want to see that at the bloomberg opinion section. a piece by roger klein, a medical. are taking a look at medicare. calling for fixing the current program rather than changing it. he makes these arguments -- potential solutions include changing specific features of the current system while leaving the current structure inside, or itself.ing the program targeted payment cuts, increased beneficiary contributions and increased payroll taxes. however, restructuring medicare by giving beneficiaries greater ownership over spending decisions and creating incentives would bring the greatest health care value to our seniors. that is just another opinion. again come the hearing starts at 10:00 today. you can look for it around noon on c-span3. host: fred schulte is senior
correspondent with kaiser health news, here to talk about the medical records. what are some of the barriers. patients face when it comes to the access other electronic medical records? guest: sometimes they have difficulty getting their doctor them.ease access to there are also sometimes barriers with the ability of health systems to send data back-and-forth. host: according to your reporting, there are new rules out that would ease patient access to electronic medical records, what are these roles? there are a number of provisions under this law. in terms of health i.t. or electronic health records, in this context of information blocking the has been going on, the inability to share
information, has firm positions that allow people to get access to their medical records for a low-cost or free. it should sound easy. but as has happened many times over the years, a lot of people have difficulty, especially when you are an unhappy customer and you ask a medical to send it to you -- you ask it has little to send it to you and you get the run around. they say they will be cracking down on that. host: you say you get blocked from accessing your record. guest: right. host: how? guest: usually when they talk about locking, they are talking about the manufacturers of electronic health records -- talking about are the manufacturers of electronic health records who sometimes in theirclauses contracts which prohibit the hospital from saying anything bad about the vendor, or from making any kind of comment like that.
that is one of the things they are trying to attack in order to stop this information blocking. host: you say that people have to pay to access their information? guest: you shouldn't. traditionally, there has always been some kind of service charge levied. in a lot of places, they still are. host: back in the day, when it was on paper, they used to charge a nominal amounts to provide your records. now you are talking about. ,he ability, or hopefully soon the ability to just push a button and there is your record. that is what the hope is. that people will be able to do that. host: how widespread is the use of electronic medical records? guest: it is pretty much everywhere now. 10 years ago it was like 10%. now. i think you are up around 90%. they are widely used. the problem is that they are not able to share information. theoretically, say you are in a different city, or you get in a car wreck or something, and you
need immediate access to your records in another place, the hope was that you would be able to do that. the hospital you went to would be about to push a few buttons and be able to access your records, but that has not happened yet. host: why? guest: depends on where you talk to. a lot of people say that. when the government gave its 30-some billion dollars to doctors and hospitals to get rid of paper and wire up their business, there were incentives not to do that. if you are a hospital, you don't really want to have action going to. so there is some economic reason why you might want to do that -- might not want to do that. if you are a manufacturer of the records, you may not want to have your competitors be a way to get an advantage over you. host: we are talking this morning about electronic medical records. if you have had experience with trying to access them or any
other story related to this, we'd like to hear that. if you live in the eastern's. country,he 202-847-8000. medical professionals, we want to hear your experience -- 202748 8002. five things to know about that electronic health records mess. what are those five things? first of all, you need to know how to get access to your records which is a lot easier said than done. i think also that people should be aware of the five that taxpayers have spent millions and billions of dollars in order , and many system in critics think it has been a flop or it really hasn't worked well. so there is also an accountability issue. there are some concerns that some doctors may be using the electronic health record to
exaggerate the kind of services they are providing. they call that upcoding, and they make a lot more money. host: you write about patient harm -- electronic records have safety risk to patients alarming -- of death. guest: the stimulus bill in 2009 in which $787 billion of money was poured into the economy to get the economy going, there was a huge chunk of billions for the electronic health record. a lot of people think at the time that the industry was still developing and there was a lot of not very good software. .o there were a lot of glitches the system would send your records to somebody else, mix of patients or some other kind of flaw in the system. when you're dealing in the hospital with people who are
seriously ill, sending a test to the wrong place can be disastrous. and we did in fact see a number of those. host: you talk about doctor are not. many doctors said they spent half a day or more typing rather than interacting with patients. in room doctor can be settled with making up to 4000 mosque clicks per shift. guest: yes, it is pretty outstanding. a lot of doctors were upset about this. they said, i didn't go to medical school to type and click. patients see this when they go to the doctor now. more and more you see the doctor typing and looking at a computer noten typing away, maybe having as much interaction with you as you would like. with doctors, they are spending their time away from the office trying to catch up with all this clicking, and it is causing them among other things, to get tired of it and want to hang it up. host: let us talk to our collars
-- our callers. brandon in milwaukee good morning? caller: i am 33 years old and i had to numerous surgeries 2008.ng in trying to get my medical records all into one central location has been difficult. now that it is 2019, it is becoming increasingly difficult. it is becoming a challenge, and it is not getting easier. . it is increasingly frustrating. there should have been a solution by now. it has taken me two weeks to try to get my medical records to one centralized dr.. is there any home best t -- the one centralized doctor.
is there any hope or is it just gridlock. guest: there is hope. these new regulations are supposed to change things. we will have to wait and see whether they do. i sympathize with you, but you are not alone in this story. we did a story with fortune video.e and we had some we had joe biden on it saying -- i am the vice president of the united states and i can't get medical records for my son. he was very frustrated by it. so this is a widespread problem that just about anybody encounters. especially if you have a complicated history and you have been to a lot of different places and you are trying to get them all to talk to each other. it is a formidable task. host: we go to florida. hi, robert? caller: good morning. your experience with electronic medical records? caller: yes, i had a question about that. differentthat
hospitals and doctors offices charge different prices for medical records? my brother just passed, god bless him, but i have medical records on him, about 10,000 pages, for free from the hospital. then i go to the emergency room, and they are charging several hundred dollars for the record. why is there a discrepancy in pricing? recordsome places, when were on paper, there were state laws that you could only charge so much. now, they can try to charge whatever they want. these new regulations will restrict that, so that should help. host: larry in california. you're trying? caller: yes -- .ost: your turn they farm out to the
person that provides the get mys, so i have to medical records from the same medical group i have been with for 10 years and i have go to each doctor to get my records. . i am starting the process today because they believe a have colon cancer. about inother doctor see for ptsd and anxiety as a vietnam veteran. she doesn't even use the medical records act because she doesn't like it, she actually has to pay a fee. so, why don't we just repeal this and get our money back and stop wasting it down a rabbit hole. that is my question. host: how much money would we need to get back? guest: we have already spent $36 billion to get into the mess we are in now, hopefully there will be some change at that. i am sorry to hear about your condition, i hope the best for you.
you are in a challenging situation, not just with the potential illness, but trying to match all this together. it is a difficult challenge. i hope the best for you. host: in march you wrote -- the ongoing fda commissioner was calling for script stricter scrutiny of electronic health records. why? guest: it is a long-standing issue about whether the software is safe enough and whether it regulated. for over a decade, there has been a back-and-forth, there was a lot of opposition to the fda. the industry says that if you allow the f.d.a. to start regulating this, the it will stifle innovation. critics say there hasn't been a lot of innovation anyway. so this is a long-standing back-and-forth. i think with former commissioner gottlieb, he was talking about possibly a new framework where it is not precisely regulated like other medical devices, but
that it has its own certification and checking to make sure that the software is safe. host: tina in mississippi. caller: hi. i have experienced this from working in the medical field at the clerical department and also as a patient. i was working when the government basically forced this on these doctors, and they give them a time limit to either sign up for lose the funding. it is a nightmare. it is running the medical field as far as i am concerned. you go to the doctor now and sometimes they have your records, sometimes they don't. sometimes their computer is down. you have topatient,
give them new information almost every time you go because they change systems. i actually had important medical records that were lost, cannot be located. the doctor is no longer in practice and it is vital information that i need. and it is nowhere to be found. it is lost in cyberspace or wherever. yes, you make a lot of good points. on this question of adopting the technology, that government position was that doctors haven't really done this. and in fact, they hadn't. they needed some push to get going, so they came up with the idea that they would reimburse doctors and hospitals for some of their cost in order to encourage them to buy the software. and they also put some penalties in their said if you don't do this, you will have a reduction
in your medicare payments. fromnk their reaction doctors or have talked to and hospitals have talked to is mixed. every industry can think of is computerized, and here we are faxing things in medicine. so obviously, many people thought we needed a change. but how it was rolled out and what has become of it are certainly big issues. host: tom from north hills, california. you're on the air. greta. hello, pleasure to speak to you. lte, istion for mr. shu was a member of kaiser permanente for probably 30 years , and they would not let me see my emergency doctor in the circumstance that took place. they denied me medical services
for seven days straight. i have tried for 40 years, mr. schulte, to get my medical records. kaiser permanente refuses. the two culprits who tried to murder me are still they are running the show at panorama city in california. they refused to turn over the records. your attorneys. twice, in two and a letters, $250,000. i refused -- i refuse both of them. i have never seen a kangaroo court in my time until april of 1987. pointtom, what is your question. caller: might point is that they will not give me my had a medical records. . i have epilepsy because i was in a coma. host: it is a law that you can
get access to your medical records? guest: he should be able to get access to them. kaiser permanente was one of the earliest adopters of this technology. this is the first i have heard of a situation like he is describing. host: james, from whitesboro, texas. caller: yes. host: mr. schulte i am glad to see you. done.a procedure the facility was in fresno, texas. they took wonderful history. however, the doctor did not read the medical history and i had a serious reaction to the drug he used. it was clearly on my record as being something that i had a reaction to. i tried to get -- like i said, i
almost died -- i tried to get the records, including all the papers, admission papers that the interviewer took when he was taking the history from me, because it was well document, and now, i can't get that. they say they destroyed the paper records. the electronic records i got, they say -- we don't keep electronic records, from the papers that we use for admission, including the medical history and such and such. i am not quite sure what to do. dr. lopez was the physician at fault here. what should a person like me do? there is no paper record remaining. i can't get the medical records, even though they claim they exist. they specifically say that the ones that are relevant, they -- cate
guest: these are ethical situations. i would need to have more detail , more information's. in any case, i am not an attorney. host: who oversees medical records? guest: the office of national coordinator for health information and technology. host: a mouthful. yes.: they oversee this, as well as the center for medical services, cms. host: lisa in virginia, good morning. . caller: good morning, sorry about that. thest wanted to say that --ctronic medical records [indiscernible] -- i would assume that the computer systems where those
records are stored are 'ompatible with other doctors offices or medical facilities. so it is going to be very difficult to establish the interoperability between doctors offices and other health care offices. but that should not prevent a totor from being able provide the records by either faxing them to the requested doctor's office that the patient .s asking for host: ok. obviously, a lot of people are having trouble getting access to their medical reference. there were a lot of -- there is a lot of software. and what you have is a lot of situations where they can't communicate with one another.
that was maybe the mistake made back when this first rolled out. that is what many critics think, and it is one of the reasons we are in the situation we are in today, that there was no thattance -- an insistence there be a commonality of systems, to be able to talk to each other and easily retrieve information and send it on to the patient. host: frank from new york. caller: hi. i have been in the medical field for 20 years. i worked for one of the biggest surgeons in manhattan. back then, didn't use electronic records. now, i think there are the best thing that ever have and to the medical field. they are more precise, less time-consuming. you were talking about doctors typing into computers, what about when they had to sit down and write them? let me tell you, a doctors handwriting is very hard to figure out. thing that i think
stops people from getting their records freely is the heap of paa laws.he caphi they are very strict. other than that, i don't see the problem. is the best thing that ever happened. guest: i don't think a lot of people are saying, we need to rush back and start putting things on paper again. i think there can be tremendous improvements. what critics of how things have rolled out are saying is that many of the promises made for fruition.not come to some systems may work very, very well, and some doctors may be really happy with it, but that is not the feeling you generally get when you start calling around with doctors. host: if you want to follow his khn.orng, you can go to
kaiser health news, where he isg, a senior correspondent for that organization. thank you for being here. onwill turn to what is going in washington today but first, some international news. >> out of venezuela, the opposition leader mid-august taken to the streets, comments or a military uprising. they say he has begun the final phase in his land to ask the president maduro. he posted a video on his twitter account -- the moment is now. he shot the video at a caracas airbase surrounded by soldiers and accompanied by detained activist leopoldo lopez. this. prompted a couple of tweets from members of the administration. mat leave reporting that the secretary supported the backing by the u.s.. this is his tweet calling for a military uprising.
also, john bolton saying that the military organization in venezuela must protect the constitution and the venezuelan people. it should stand by the national assembly and the legitimate institutions against the usurpation of democracy. by united states stands with the people of venezuela. host: today in washington our conversation with all of you this morning. your thoughts on what is here.ing let us begin with the standoff between the house judiciary committee and the attorney general. the house democrats would like the counsel for their committee to ask mr. barr some questions at their hearing on thursday, and mr. barr is saying that it is members of congress that should be asking questions. also, speaker of the house nancy pelosi and senate minority leader chuck schumer head to the white house at 10:30. they are meeting with the president on infrastructure.
as of right now, we believe the meeting is still closed to the cameras. pelosi told her democratic colleagues yesterday here in washington, that "she hopes the president learned his lesson about allowing the cameras in the last time they met which was in, december" and the government shutdown that.ed after also having on capitol hill, the acting homeland security secretary testifying about the agency's budget request for 2020 over on c-span3. it started around 9:00 a.m. eastern. you can watch it there on c-span3. at 10:00 a.m. eastern, the first hearing.for all . the house rules committee is taking up the issue we are covering it, you can go to c-span.org for details on when it will air. your thoughts on what is happening in washington today. republicans, 202748 8001,
andcrats, 202-748-8000, 8002.ndence, 202748 this is the headline this morning on the president and the democrats meeting. the headline says it -- infrastructure meeting comes with high tension, from the usa today's front page. today,story inside usa and note that trump democratic lawmakers have flooded with an infrastructure deal since the president took office that talks have stalled on how to pay for the investment needed to make a dent in modernizing the nation's highways. transit systems and airports, and that was before congressional subpoenas out of flying over the mueller report. again, that meeting is happening at 10:30 a.m. eastern time. let us go to shirley in ohio, democrat.
caller: good morning. i have been trying to absorb everything this morning. alan dershowitz and the other guy. i am against impeachment because i feel that donald trump is in new york his due when he comes out of the white house, that is why i am against impeachment. thing, why should we keep changing the rules and regulations for donald trump? it seems the whole world is turned upside down for this man. i was raised differently, i was raised to tell the truth, especially if you get in legal trouble, or you would go to jail. and i am not going to jail for no one. mr. barr has wrecked his career as a department justice for trump. i had respect for him and i thought, this is one man who will come in there and do the right thing i do not if he is
looking at his vacation home in a big yacht on the ocean, or what, but these people are ruining themselves for thes this man. why do they continue to do this? i am 70 years old. i have never lied that much in my 70 years. thank you. host: thank you, shirley. .on from pennsylvania, democrat caller: just a follow up with a collar, attorney general are is attorney general for all the people, not just president trump. for him to defy his subpoena by congress, which they already oversee us, they oversee the country, and president trump acts like a king in that he doesn't have to answer to anyone and his people who work under him are doing the same thing. back during watergate, the republicans and democrats came
together and put the country first. i think that is what these republicans need to do. host: ok. we will go to albany, georgia, l, a democrat. i really think barr is going to obstruct the whole -- for the life of me, i can't understand why they let the president of the united states select the attorney general, which you know that they will select one who is going to do whatever they want them to do. there has got to be a better way of making the attorney general's office impartial by either having them elected or having -- four attorney general and then putting them up for election, and either side can get votes for them, or put ads out, is up to them for
-- up to them to run for election. but the attorney general has to be impartial. you will never have an impartial attorney general as long as the president appoints the attorney general. host: are you going to watch tomorrow, the senate judiciary committee? caller: i think if you start stonewalling everything -- host: what questions do you have for the attorney general tomorrow morning? caller: why did he do what he did as far as the rollout. stonewalling is he congress about the redacted parts. it is not like congress -- he -- to make it [indiscernible] be a way to see
what is in there. you can't withhold it from congress. if there are problems, if they think there will be leaks or -- congresse that wants to hold him accountable, and they checked through it all over several days, the paperwork is right there and never leaves the room. it has to be that way. but this has to be open and impartial. and donald trump about his taxes, such as back and everything else, you know the man from the beginning is a thief. i hope to god that if we do not get him out of office, when he leaves office, he will be directed to jail and do not pass go. chairman of the intelligence committee, adam schiff, was at an event of this morning.
he has making some news. this is him talking about the wheeler report but also the testimony of eric prince to congress. here is what he had to say. rep. schiff: looking back at some of the witnesses who have come through, starting with eric prince, you suggested he may have lied to your committee. after reading the report, do you believe eric prince lied to your committee? rep. schiff: i do believe that there is a very strong evidence the he will then be misled committee and made false statements to the committee and later today, we will be making a criminal referral to the justice department. >> he will make a criminal referral on erik prince? the evidence is so laden that the justice this.ment is to consider his testimony, which i can discuss because it is public record now, was that his meeting in the seychelles with this
russian banker was purely by chance. ,e just happened to be there and his hosts suggested that she happened to go to seychelles for about a day -- [laughter] rep. schiff: and had a chance meeting with a russian banker. we know now from the report that it was not a chance meeting, that he had materials about him before he left, and that he discussed it with mr. bannon for he left. we know there were communications after he returned. he was also asked whether he was attempting to establish a back channel for the trump transition or campaign, which he also denied. it is clear from the mueller false.that that was in very material ways, i think the evidence strongly suggests he willingly misled our committee and the justice department is to consider whether it can make a prosecutable case. one of the issues i am sure the justice department will have to , some of that
information was provided a proffered session. whether that precludes the justice department from using that information request you still cannot lie to congress regarding the type of session. rep. schiff: you can't lie to congress, you're absolutely right, but the evidence that his testimony was false was given to the justice department by prince at end the conditions that it not be used against him. so proving the case might be problematic, but that is something the justice department will need to carefully scrutinize. problem, of course, is that somehow, mysteriously or magically, communications between mr. prince and mr. bannon have fled their devices do you think he has been candid with your committee? rep. schiff: when we release his
transcripts, you will see that mr. bannon refused to answer almost all our questions. hold him insed to contempt, the g.o.p. members of our committee would not go forward, they did not want to cross him to that degree. ofthere are whole periods time in which mr. bannon refused .o answer questions whe when we asked whether he was asserting privilege, he merely said that he was not answering questions because the white house had asked him not to could you bring him back? rep. schiff: we may. we are coming through the report didetermine what areas wheeler examine so that there was no need to reinvent the wheel? what areas did he not examine, and which areas would public benefit from the public airing of the testimony? we are through those questions right now. host: that was a washington post
event, it is still going on, by the way, over on c-span2 the washington coast's robert acosta -- the washington post's robert acosta was interviewing representative adam schiff. we go to diana in them oregon, a democrat. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to bring up to the other subjects no one is talking about. everyone is talking about how america elected trump a of his dishonesty and morals, that is true. just like out of his last seven elections, the ones that went to republicans went to them from the electoral college, not america, no matter how many people repeat that. also, let us please not forget these children that are still being held in cages on the southern border. these men are not even letting american congresspeople see what they are doing to these people
and these children on our southern border. host: you might be interested in what is happening over on c-span3 this morning. we can take you there for a little bit. the acting homeland security secretary and see bp , in charge of customs and border protection, is testifying that now. let us listen to what he is telling members of congress. >> my national presence and collaboration. we make sure they know who they can call if they don't already have an attorney identified. they have the opportunity to also meet with their counsel when they come into the u.s. before their hearing as well. >> i would appreciate additional information as to how that process is working, and whether you think it is effective. and whether most or all migrants do have legal counsel. i would appreciate that. . -- zero-tolerance policy
host: the hearing happening on c-span3 with the acting homeland security secretary after the headlines this morning on the washington post -- memo calls for slm changes, fees for migrants and time limits for cases. trump claims rampant abuse and gives a 90 day deadline. so i am sure there are questions being asked from the lawmakers to the acting homeland security secretary. pamela in new york, democrat. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to first say, since you just brought up the immigration situation, that i think it is an absolute disgrace to the american way of life and what we stand for. i am not a loan -- i am not alone in that opinion. it makes me crazy to think that trump is using people as pawns to get his, in my opinion, his constituents to see that -- see,
i promised you this, and i'm going to do it. he is using people, and that is horrible. i called because i wanted to address what is going on in washington. i am fed up with being blamed, as a democrat, for everything going on in government right now to secure our democracy. in my opinion, this is government in action -- .overnment inaction what we are doing now to try to get the truth is what our government is paid to do, and it makes me crazy to think that for not doing that, and it makes me question why not? what is the real seed of what is going on today? you had a cinnamon on about a week ago from florida who said you hadorried about -- a gentleman from florida, a republican, who was worried about whether we were having a one-party system develop. that is what i think is going on
here. because, -- yesterday i happened to listen to jfk and nixon's debate. i had come across a wonderful cd package with all of the greatest speeches made in the 20th century. i tell all the young people that are listening now to listen to the jfk-nixon debate of 19 extreme and you will be amazed, -- debate of 1960, and you will be amazed at how history is repeating its health. he must have known something was going on with nixon as to whether or not he was a true and honest politician at that point, because he talked about what is going on now, the democracy that is so important in our country, and the fact that we have values in america that we need to restore. in my opinion. , if we don't do that now, we will be lost. host: ok. we go to silas in rutland, vermont on the independent line. caller: thank you for taking my
call. in regards to impeachment and , onemphasis on it today thing congress has been doing is ceding power to the presidency from republican and democratic administrations going back, where the president seems to be able to go to war almost when they want to, negotiate treaties without to.fication when they want so people can think they are treaties, but they are actually not, because they are not ratified; created secure orders when they want to, -- neil gorsuch when he was up for nomination, before he was on a lower court, the lower court sided with an illegal immigrant against the chevron doctrine, where the courts were deferred to the executive agencies for enforcement of their own rules. he wrote that the courts should
do their job and move on the law. the laws are created. by congress, not by executive order. so congress has stepped back and let the power of the presidency gain power beyond imagination of any of the founding fathers. said he impeachment issue, if they wanted to separate the wheat from the chaff, they would create a situation where it would make it illegal to influence an investigation and separate the investigator from any authority under the which -- branch, the law says the president could fire anybody under the executive branch. he can't fire anybody in congress or the courts, but he can fire anybody in the executive ranch. i think congress needs to examine this from a broader perspective and take on more responsibility. so that residents are not doing
executive orders, which our -- atlantic its was something they had in mind. laws were supposed to be created by the body of congress. host: with more on the attorney general testifying. >> before we get to that, a couple of tweets that have come off from the hearing with the homeless secretary -- a reporter saying, the acting secretary is considering a new plan to detain immigrants families long-term. you can see that on the abc website. and that the reporter said the acting secretary has told the house panel that the trump administration plans to ask for supplementing funding -- supplemental funding to deal search. border cnn reporting that in discussions about the upcoming meeting with the house, jerrold mondays staff met talking about the demand from
the committee to get the full mueller report, and that there was no significant progress to get the report. the committee has a deadline of wednesday for the justice department to comply with the subpoena to turn over the full unredacted report. the wall street journal takes a look at the meeting on infrastructure, adding that as the chair of the house committee that sets tax policy, richard neal is no big player in the negotiations. one of those difficult elements of reaching an agreement on a massive infrastructure package is determine how we will pay for it. arer. trump's attacks derived from mr. neil requesting the report, it could ride negotiations. host: we are talking about what is happening in washington today. what is on your mind. from washington. caller: i am a longtime democrat, and i am really a supporter of right and wrong. this congress is out of control.
is whystion that i have is mr. barr being allowed to be the georgian jury -- the judge and jury? >> i thought there a process they had to go through in order allowed -- why is trump 's decision on a generation as a way for him to get away with obstruction of justice? i really think that we should investigate, that we really should impeach him. the reason i say that is because if we don't, then what he does will become precedent for our future presidents. i think it is dangerous, and i think we are not an authoritarian society, and remove the need to bring control back to this white house. trump needs to be -- he is out
of control. that is my thought today. host: all right. we have a couple of minutes left. some news, reaction to the news coming from venezuela this morning. >> you heard earlier this morning from the president's administrative people as far as venezuela. yet is some members of congress reaction -- 11 is an american community in florida, and throughout the u.s., all love freedom and they stand together with the people of venezuela. senator dick durbin saying -- ambassador bolton called me this morning with a briefing of the drama in venezuela. this could be the beginning of regime.for the corrupt senator marco rubio -- after guards opened the front gate, a large number of citizens are entering the air force to support the interim president. host: larry in minnesota, republican. caller: hi,. i just wanted to say that.
have a thing that was already investigated. it was a big hoax, there was no collusion, no conspiracy with the russians, and the attorney general, the person who is supposed to make the determination about obstruction people whowe have are just lost in their conspiracy theories. it is really about time to get over this and get on with governing the nation and doing something for the people instead of being obsessed over these -- this investigation. trying to get information about the president's taxes, when he doesn't have to disclose it. host: ok. we have to leave it there because