Impeachment process with Molly Reynolds. And a discussion on president it on the federal judiciary. Host as President Trump and many of his supporters call for the public naming of the whistleblower in the impeachment inquiry, there is bipartisan opposition on capitol hill and reluctance by News Organizations. Visit important to know the identity of the whistleblower . Democrats call 2027488000. Republicans, 2027488001. And for independents and others, 2027488003. 2. You can send us a text. That is 2027488003. We are on twitter at cspanwj. Facebook. Com cspan is where you post. We will take a look at some of the key races across the country. Starting with the whistleblower in a report out this morning out npr, can trump legally the whistleblower . Experts say it would not violate any laws and picture of the president and rand paul. President trump and his allies have amplified their calls for the whistleblower who spark to the impeachment inquiry to be weather it would whether it would be a crime for the president to unmask the whistleblower. According to government officials, the answer is no. If trump thinks he knows the name, he can come out and say it and he is probably as protected as anyone said robert litt. Other legaleral experts said trump guttering or tweeting the name could, in theory, trigger an article of impeachment for retaliating against the whistleblower, but it would not run afoul of any criminal statutes. If a news outlet or member of congress or member of public outed whistleblower, no criminal law would be violated. Asking you how important is it to know the identity of the was a blower . Of the whistleblower . The headline in usa today, do your job. Rand paul demands the media reveal the whistleblowers identity. He said that at mondays rally with President Trump. Here is a look. [video clip] needs to step up and have equal courage to defend the president. Hunter biden made 50,000 a month. That is the definition of corruption, we know he got it only because of his family connections. We also now know the name of the whistleblower. Whistleblower needs to come before congress as a material witness because he worked for joe biden at the same time under biden was getting money from corrupt oligarchs. I say to the media, do your job and print his name. [applause] and i say this to my fellow colleagues in congress, to every republican in washington, step subpoena hunter biden and subpoena the was a blower the whistleblower. And i say to my colleagues, if shifty schiff will not let hunter biden come and will not bring the whistleblower forward, every member of congress should take a walk and say this is a farce. Host rand paul monday in louisville at the rally for matt pavitt matt bevin, who appears to be losing the race for governor. Bevin refuses to concede as kentucky ruben at oriole race goes down to the wire Gubernatorial Race goes down to the wire. Democrats did that to dana rossy in washington in 2004, keep counting until the d wins. Democrats lead republicans by approximately 5000. Others saying kentucky have no automatic has no automatic recount law. If trump had not come to kentucky, bevin would be so far behind, there would not be a need for a recount. Is it important to know the import the identity of the whistleblower . 2027488000 for democrats. 2027488001, republicans. For all others, that is 2027488002. A quick comment, one of several on facebook. Regardless of party, his identity should be revealed. The public should know so they wont think it is a random or bogus person this person should have security detail 24 7. Joe in florida, good morning. Caller good morning, sir. No because the whistleblower is protected by the constitution. Rand paul, Lindsey Graham, they need to do their job. The blue wave is coming soon. You saw what happened in kentucky and virginia, it will happen in many states. Carolina the blue wave is coming and this is the beginning of the end of trump. It will be out in 2020. He is going to lose big time because he is so corrupt. Caller good morning. We live in a time of consensus the divisiveuse of , it isch devices important that one should realize by traditions, we have always had the opportunities to face our accusers. Even jesus faced his accuser with judas. He faced him with a kiss. , it seems tokiss me we dont really know who said if they were acting in good faith or not. It is important to have that confrontedump, to be and really ask him some questions. Host what would you consider of the question, the substance of his complaint or his background . Works, his political views, etc. . Are those relevant in the investigation . Ourer there is a truth of reality and we should understand what that reality and what that truth is and that is the reason he should be faced. Host lets hear from barbara, democrats line asking is it important to know the identity of the whistleblower on the phone call in particular. This is barbara. Caller i truly believe their identity should be kept secret if are no other reason than in the future, it sets a precedent for whether or not we protect people inside our judiciary system. I am democrat, but i believe in protecting this person now, we would also protect a whistleblower perhaps against a democratic president. I think the fact we can have these checks and balances is important. Said,he caller before me if he needed to come into court and face donald trump in a court setting, that is fine, but i believe in the general public, his identity should be protected so in the future people feel comfortable coming forward with information that might be important for such investigations. Next,independent line is curtis in baltimore, maryland. Go ahead. Caller yes, sir, good morning, cspan. That the identity of the whistleblower should be kept a secret because these are the rules on the policies put into place prior to this impeachment. Is republicans want to do put this persons name out there so they can smear this individual in every way possible and that is what they do. As far as impeachment itself, i think the president should have been impeached a long time ago. Host on text and twitter, this is anne texting us. Just like someone reporting a crime by calling 911, it matters more about the crime. There is enough corroboration to backup the account, it does not matter about the whistleblower. There is whistleblower protection for a reason. Everything this person put in the report has been proven to be accurate. Trump admitted he did what the whistleblower said he did. Everything reported has been confirmed in testimony by others. The name of the whistleblower should be protected by the law established. James texting us the whistleblower protection enhancement act of 2012 protects haveal employees who evidence of waste, fraud, or abuse. The media resists naming the was a blower. President trump and his allies say there is a gaping hole in the middle of the biggest news story in years, the name of the federal whistleblower who sparked the inquiry that threatens trumps presidency. They have called on News Organizations to reveal the name of the officer who raised concerns, yet despite knowledge of the individuals identity, reported. As not been personality such as rush limbaugh, the story did not get much traction. The answer appears to lie in several factors, concerns that revealing the name could jeopardize the whistleblower upon safety. And potential adverse reaction to such disclosure. There is also a question of whether the person testified in news accounts. Post, the New York Times, and Associated Press have reported the whistleblower is a male cia officer, but none have identified the individual. And thete Intelligence Community connection was an important part of the story because at least at that point, readers had Little Information by which to assess the value or veracity of the whistleblowers complaint. The ap has continued to keep the name under wraps because ap typically refrains from identifying whistleblowers. Lots there at washingtonpost. Com. In new york, on the republican line. Make sure you mute your television. Go ahead with your comment after doing that. Caller i am trying to find out why the democrats always try to do things sneaky in congress by whistleblower, hunter biden and biden and everything seems to be against this republican president since he took office 016. 1 shouldnt he have the right to face his accusers . Or do democrats only want to write to put every a right to put everything in basements so nothing is heard. Host assuming the whistleblower is eventually named publicly or by the committee, you think he should come to publicly testify before a committee . Caller without a doubt, yes, i do. Host thanks for your call. Salt lake city, democrats line. Caller hello. Host hi, there. Caller i think the whistleblower law was passed for a reason and i think if it is a truly bad law, it will be changed. Observing politics for 50 years, i majored in it in college. Foruld love i voted Richard Nixon the first time i voted. Ever since then, i have voted democratic. The reason is i have reached a conclusion and i would love for it to be disproved. It seems like too many corruptans are either before they are elected or become corrupt afterwards. Generally speaking, i have thated a conclusion also in general, republicans are for the rich and the democrats are for the people. I would love for republicans to prove me wrong by simply doing the right thing once in a while. Thanks. Host lisa in maryland on our democrats line. Your thoughts on the whistleblower should that individual be publicly named . Caller i am on the independent line. Host thank you for correcting me. Caller no, the whistleblowers identity should be protected. It is a federal law and it is going to affect future whistleblowers and the intelligence agency. Who is going to come forward and provide information if we are going to violate the laws . Lawlessoing to become a society. Please protect the whistleblower. , maryland,ville jeffrey, democrats line. Caller i think the whistleblower is protected by the law. I dont understand why President Trump and his Republican People dont want to face the truth of what is going on. I have never seen politics like this. What are they afraid of . Overont trump just give documents like they asked for . They need to stop this because this person that told the truth, everybody else in the hearings told the same way, but everybody saying republicans did not have a right to see what is going on. Why the republicans cannot realize the American People have a right i know trump is trump, he is going to be who he is. To get together as americans, me, you, and these americans calling in need to see the light. They want to put a blind eye to everything trump is doing, but they want to blame the democrats. Host one of those republicans in the basement is jim jordan on the oversight committee. Jim jordan may be moving committees. The headline at fox news, representative jordan willing to move to Intelligence Committee. Antonio, texas, john on the republican line. Caller good morning. Meli is the whistleblower, he traveled to it is imperative to know everything about this guy because he also write the i am the resistance article and writing the new book, anonymous. Host where have you confirmed he is authoring this book and the details of his background . Caller i have done all my own research and all signs point to eric caramelli. The interwebs is a great tool. Texas. Hat is john in we played you the comments from senator rand paul in kentucky calling for the media to do its job. The headline, Washington Examiner getting the tone of that, senator schumer blasts calls to identify the whistleblower. Here is what senator schumer had to say. [video clip] last night the president held including thelly junior senator from kentucky who urged the media to disclose the identity of the whistleblower. The president quickly prays to the senators praised the senators idea. I cannot stress how wrong this is. We have laws to protect the identity and safety of patriotic americans who come forward to protect the constitution. We have men years members on the other side of the aisle who spent their years defending whistleblowers and the laws that protect them. Where are they now . I was pleased to hear senator soon spoke out and said supply was must be protected senator thune spoke out and said whistleblowers must be protected. There should be bipartisan outrage at the public attempts by the president to expose the identity of a federal. Histleblower you dont get to determine when the laws apply and when they dont, whether you like with the whistleblower said or whether you dont. This whistleblower, whose complaint was deemed credible is protected by these statutes. Every Single Member of this body should stand up and say it is wrong to disclose his or her identity. Host here is the Washington Times reporting on some reaction from senator of senator rand pauls call to expose the whistleblower. Democrats demand gets democratic condemnation, mixed republican reaction. Rob portman, john soon, mitt romney were among the lawmakers who objected to revealing the whistleblowers name saying it would send a chilling message to other Government Employees and from that article, they have john kennedy from louisiana saying he brushed aside rhetoric of mr. Pauls about the identity of the whistleblower. I think if he or she has conviction, would step forward. It is amazing how many federal officials have little or no understanding of whistleblower laws. Do not allow ideological reality. S to distort in st. Joseph, michigan, joining us on the independent line. Arlene, go ahead. Sayer i am calling in to dont think the whistleblower outed toessarily to be everyone, but from reading his report of what he heard secondhand, which was made up by highpowered attorneys, to me, it sounds like he was being thatd with information and is why i think he needs to be investigated by more than the democratic party. Host kenneth in buffalo, new york, your thoughts on the importance of knowing the identity of the whistleblower. Caller yes. I am surprised cspan even asked that question and encourages people to speak out against it is the law of the land and there is a good reason for it. If you are in russia or countries in eastern europe, if or gocide to contradict against Vladimir Putin, for instance, pretty soon you will in aad or in siberia prison and we have not gotten to that point yet. They read the reason they want the whistleblowers name is so they can discredit him and or punishte against him to him for doing what he did in spite of the fact he says it has been corroborated by other witnesses, he will be punished and then who is going to want to step up and be a please stand who ishistleblowe going to want to step up and be a whistleblower again . That will be the end of whistleblowing in this country. That was initiated at the beginning because they saw a need for it. If that is the kind of country you want to have like Vladimir Putin where people get retaliated against for telling the truth, okay, i hope you like it. The to his point, Statement Released from the whistleblowers attorney a couple of weeks ago says in part, members of the media have a role in protecting those who lawfully expose suspected wrongdoing. Disclosure of the name of any person who may be suspected to be the whistleblower places that individual and their family in great physical danger. Any physical harm the individual and or their family suffers as a result of a disclosure means the individuals and publications reporting such names will be personally liable for that harm. Such behavior is at the pinnacle of irresponsibility and is intentionally reckless. To North Carolina on our republican line. Good morning to dwight. Caller i heard all of you talking and it does make sense about not having the whistleblowers name pronounced. Thank you. Host headline from the New York Times this morning on the status , where things are on the impeachment inquiry, this is the latest. Inoy tells of pressing kiev a quid pro quo. Aid tod says he linked the investigation. He told a top ukrainian official the country would most likely have to give President Trump what he wanted, a public pledge for investigations in order to unlock military aid. The disclosure from Gordon Sondland confirmed his role in laying out a quid pro quo to ukraine that conditioned the release of Security Assistance from the United States on the countrys willingness to say it was investigating former Vice President joseph biden and other democrats. That admission included in a Statement Released on tuesday directly contradicted his testimony to investigators when he said he never thought there was ever precondition on the aid. You can read all of that. Also from kurt volker, his testimony has been posted on our website. The former special envoy to ukraine. You can find that among others on our special impeachment page. Back to your calls. Ray in massachusetts on the independent line. Caller yes. How are you guys doing . Host doing fine, thanks. Caller the whistleblower law is the whistleblower law. Against as him and henchman like donald trump, a nazi like him, you have to protect this man or whoever they are, you have to protect them. Ont mark in philadelphia our democrats line, go ahead. Caller i think what is lost in this whole thing is that this is a Civil Service cia employee, detail at the white house. Gets detailed to the white house, blows the whistle on the chief executive officer, who is his boss, President Trump, arguably the most powerful man in the world. There you are a lowly cia employee blowing the whistle on the most powerful man in the world. Lets say the guy lives in Northern Virginia and they out his name. First of all, his career at cia is finished. Even if he does stay with the cia, they will have to reassign him to new zealand or something. There is no way you can out of this man. I dont care what anyone says, this is the whistleblower law and this is to protect employees from people in power. Thank you. Host mark from philadelphia. Election news from that state. Wave crashes down on pennsylvania again as voters from philly to Delaware County turn left. The Political Forces that shaped last years midterm elections showed no signs of abating as voters turned on republicans and establishment democrats alike in races from philadelphia to scranton to the suburbs of delaware and chester county. Also show you the front page this morning in the Washington Times and they are reporting on the virginia races. Trump anger puts democrats in charge is there headline. With anger at President Trump boiling over, democrats steamrolled a victory claiming majorities in both chambers of the General Assembly for the first time in two decades. Back to our calls and our question about the whistleblower. Jason in portland, joining us on the republican line. Caller hello. One of the things the outed ower should be i think there are laws on both for a reason and this could happen to a democrat where a whistleblower comes out against think ber and i dont outed. Think behe outed. I think the transcript speaks for itself and all you need to do is read the transcript, that is all. Host jim in virginia, good morning, democrats line. Caller good morning. You have to ask yourself why would the whistleblower come out . Because there is corruption. In the 8 years president obama was president , how many whistleblowers were there . None. This president is corrupt and the whistleblower needs to be protected and also, who is between Lindsey Graham and rand paul, who is trumps favorite asskisser . Thank you. Host reaction from members of the u. S. Senate, angus king from maine had this essay on efforts to reveal the identity of the whistleblower. [video clip] the whistleblowers identity and what they have to say is irrelevant. It is like someone walking by and sees smoke coming out of a window and they call the Fire Department. Who called the Fire Department doesnt matter if there is a fire and this whistleblower, i read the complaint last night. Virtually everything in that complaint has been verified in public testimony, particularly the transcript the partial transcript, we dont even know if it is a real transcript, the partial transcript of the call confirms what the whistleblower said. I dont care if it is tom brady, it doesnt matter because the investigation is what happened. This is a distraction. If the name comes out, they will spend a week finding his grandmother voted democratic for Franklin Roosevelt or something. It has nothing to do with the facts and it is a distraction. I can go on and on about how wrong this is in terms of you want people to come forward, you want to respect the law. Disappointing is too mild a word. It is terrible and it is terrible for the country. Maineangus king of looking forward to an impeachment trial. This is the headline this morning from the Washington Post, Senate Republicans considering including bidens in the impeachment trial. Republic ash whether they should use an impeachment trial to scrutinize former Vice President joe biden and his son, hunter, as trump allies push to call them as witnesses while others dismissed the suggestion as a risky political ploy. The ongoing discussions are a revealing glimpse into the fault lines in the gop ahead of a possible trial of trump in the Upper Chamber where there are varying appetites among Senate Republicans for the type of political combat relished by the president and his most hardcore defenders. We hear from jd next in alabama, independent line. Madnessit is absolute that anybody is even talking about disclosing the identity and name of the whistleblower. You have a guest on your show sometimes, i have spoken to him on the phone. He said on your show a month ago, stephen cohen, considered to be one of the foremost leading authorities on whistleblower law. He said on cspan about a month and a half ago it would be a travesty of justice i am paraphrasing, to ever disclose the name of a whistleblower. 1777 whenn 77 United States sailor blew the whistle on a corrupt commander. Continental congress agreed, gave them restitution, protection, and enacted the whistleblower law. It is a patriotic duty for americans to come forward as whistleblowers and if we are going to make america trump often says, this should remain a sanctified doctrine in american law. If we want to be like g ching ing and Vladimir Putin and kim jongun where people find whistleblower and uses nerve agent to destroy them, we can be like those rulers. Tyrannical the tentacles of corruption are seen in this with clarity. This is the way the mafia operates, they get you in prison. This is the way the columbia are tells cartels operated for years. This is going to silence americans in nuclear agencies, the air force, all over the country. People are not going to let out peep becauset a this damage has been done. Host thank you for that reminder, that segment on washington journal. We go next to our republican line and susan from hampton, virginia. Caller hey. Everybody does not have the facts. The fact is the whistleblower already outed himself when he went to schiffs office and worked with his staff to write up the whistleblower complaint. The whistleblower first went to the Justice Department and the Justice Department turned him away and said nothing was wrong with the phone call. We can read the phone call, people. Wake up and epstein did not kill himself, thank you. Host President Trump has not named the whistleblower, he speculated about it, including sunday afternoon in comments to reporters. [video clip] there have been stories written about a certain individual and they say he is the whistleblower. If he is the whistleblower, he has no credibility because he is rice guy,guy, a susan and obama guy and he hates trump. He is a radical. Maybe it is not him. If it is him, you guys ought to release the information. Host an editorial view in that point in naming the whistleblower, they write the public is entitled to know all the facts about the whistleblower and not just the facts as characterized by journalists or certain facts judged to be relevant by journalists. Credibility goes both ways. Joby affiliation, performance and any connections to investigators are all things that merit public scrutiny. Some will argue the whistleblower cannot be identified because exposure would bring threats to his safety, it is true people of great notoriety sometimes face threats, but it is also true the whistleblowers name is already out there. If threats are coming, they are coming whether or not a News Organization reports his identity. Part of the editorial. Brandon in south carolina, good morning. Caller yes, i dont think the whistleblower identity should be known. One comment i would like to make listening to the previous caller and i agree with jd, when they call and assume they know who the whistleblower is, that is dangerous because they are putting peoples names out there and they might not be that is might not know that is the whistleblower. They can target that individual. Other people might assume that is the whistleblower. A prime example of not outing the whistleblower, i saw last how a finger up at the motorcade and lost her job. I wish i had known about that earlier. I would like to know more about that and that is a prime example of freedom of speech or whatever you want to do and people retaliate. The president s retaliates. The president retaliates. Host that was a local election in the d. C. Area, Loudoun County. The woman who gave middle finger to trumps motorcade wins Virginia Election bid. She won a Loudoun County superintendent seat, the d. C. Suburbs in virginia. Max seen in new baltimore, michigan, joining us on the independent line. Caller good morning, cspan. Thank you for taking my call. This question about the whistleblower. The whistleblower has to be protected without question. Was therehand, a conspiracy using this whistleblower to put together evidence to make trump look bad . Forave a transcript open interpretation. If you want to believe it, you will. The whistleblower goes, i think trump is given the right to confront his accusers, but we must protect the whistleblower. I dont know how this is all it isto pan out, but conflicting to me and i am thoroughly and totally confused about this whole affair. It smells to high heaven. Thank you and i hope you all have a good day. Host the reporting in the dallas reporting news, former Energy Secretary rick perry testimony shows rick perry involved at key junctures of trump posse ukraine saga. Newly released testimony from the u. S. Ambassador to the European Union provides evidence rick perry played a central role in the ukrainian saga that resulted in an impeachment probe against President Trump. Gordon sondlands deposition also leaves on answered many questions about exactly what exactly the former Texas Governor knew and when. The tension was overshadowed by other major revelations in the 379 patent document such as a revised testimony from sondland he told officials u. S. Military themas contingent on pursuing probes. He refused to testify before impeachment investigators or comply with a congressional subpoena for documents. Next up is calhoun, georgia, we hear from james on the republican line. Caller good morning. They are so blind. The whistleblower, i dont think it is necessary to reveal his name, the plot is fully hatched. I think nadler may have already. Ad an inkling of it nadler told him this is an impeachment inquiry and that was about three days before ansi pelosi came out with this. I think the irony of this is the double standard andy hypocrisy theouble standard and hypocrisy. How biden bank and stand up there and curse. Another irony is all the ukrainians got from the Obama Administration was pillows and blankets and mres. Now trump started arming them so they could back the russians against his good buddy putin. Trump has been harder on the president e any of any president since the cold war. I dont think nancy pelosi would ever submit articles of impeachment to the senate. She is going to drag this out as long as she possibly can in their excuse is going to be there is no use turning over to the senate, just about it now, you have to vote against trump or give us control of the house and the senate and then we can get him even if he is reelected and the truth is this is just like the mueller investigation. Want and it host this is the headline from the Washington Post, Justice Department aiming to release report on russia probe. A potentially explosive inspector generals report about the fbis investigation into President Trumps 2016 campaign according to multiple people familiar with the effort. One person involved said the target a day for the reports release has set is november 20. After more likely to come thanksgiving because of the complicated and contentious mix of legal classification and political issues at play. The findings will mark a major public test of attorney general William Barrs credibility giving given his past suggestions of problems with investigative decisions made by former fbi leaders. The findings by Michael Horowitz also will set the stage for the separate, but related investigation led by john durham, who is investigating how u. S. Intelligence agencies pursued allegations russian agents might have conspired with Trump Associates during the 2016 campaign. Officials recently said the investigation is pursuing attentional crimes. Back to calls about the whistleblower. Murray in marie in south carolina. Caller good morning. With this corrupt administration, people smell the coffee. What do you think will happen to the whistleblower . You know the president is corrupted. Host dale in florida, independent line. Caller i just was going to Say Something about having the right to face his accusers. As far as outing the whistleblower, he has already been outed to use somebody elses phrase. He is also now suspect within he ina if indeed it is a the cia. He is done in the cia. Small job insome new zealand or something, but that is about it. Democrats wont have anything to do with him because they wont trust him. Republicans sure wont trust him. The man is done anyway, he might as well open up a Grocery Store in hoboken. Have a good day. Host the opinion this morning of usa today with their picture of President Trump, rand paul, asked the media to reveal the name during that rally on monday, the fundamental promises to create safe space for witnesses of wrongdoing to come forward and report it and for the sake of his or her professional reputation or physical safety to remain anonymous in doing so, nothing chills truth telling in the halls of power like the risk of retribution and no risk is more harrowing than unmasking potential Impeachable Offenses by the president. We will read and opposing view from jim jordan in just a moment. Lets hear from bonnie in maryland, go ahead. I am so glad i have this opportunity. I was not a whistleblower. However, i was accused of it and i lost my job because of it. Everybody was being interviewed about who had told the military that an officer was having an affair with our boss and a person who did it was not me and i had to go in for an interview and during the interview i thought, why am i even in here . Then i realized they were trying to get me to confess to being the whistleblower. We went to the jag office. I lost my job. I know the whistleblower is listening and good luck to you. Host how long had you worked in that position . Caller i had been there for 15 years. Host what was the reason they gave you for the firing . Caller the contract i had this was a federal contract. Host a defense contractor . Caller correct. The time of the contract was up and they refused to renew it. Host did you ever hear from former colleagues who confirmed your suspicion you were fired because they suspected you of being the whistleblower . Caller i went to the head this was amory and i went to the head and reported it to everybody. Aentually, this individual senior military officer wound up marrying the guy, so there was no doubt what was going on, but they did not want it to be talked about. Everybody knew what was going on and it was awful. They had some of my colleagues were babysitting this child. I was not in the click. I was older than them and they wanted to blame it on somebody, so they got me. Host we go to our republican line and herald in florida. Harold in florida. Caller everybody seems to call in saying the whistleblower should be protected. On the other hand, he has made himself a fact witness. It has come out now he worked for biden, he worked for biden in the ukraine, he was there when they were talking about holding back over 1 billion in aid unless they stopped the investigation of the corporation that hired his son. When you look at what the whistleblower knows, you have to release his identity so it can be crossexamined. He was the one with biden bang when they were making the threats to stop the investigation of his son and when you look at the suns payoff from china, romania, and the ukraine, it was obvious they were paying off biden. This is crazy that if you look into what biden bang did, somehow you are at fault and nobody can be questioned, that is crazy. You cannot have somebody taking bribes of that nature, of that size from china, the ukraine, and romania and not go after him. Host from the usa today, the opposing view from jim jordan, impeachment push is fundamentally unfair. Government whistleblowers should be protected, a fundamental tenet of due process is the ability to confront ones accusers. Americans should assess credibility and motivations of the individual who initiative initiated the inquiry. Randy in chicago heights, illinois, independent line. Caller i would like to say the identity should be protected because there is one truth of why he should be and that is what happened in mexico with that family. All the mothers and babies that got killed because they were trying to help the Mexican Government by identifying the cartel starting all this trouble. If they were protected, that would have never happened what happened. If there is an example why this man, this whistleblower should be protected. Host he is talking about the story i am sure you are well aware of, the reporting in the Washington Post, at least 9 members of fundamentalist families killed in mexico. At all that highlighted the increasing grip of organized crime on parts of the country. Mexican Public Security secretary said three women and 6 children of the extended family were killed in attacks on three vehicles monday in the Northern State of sonora. The victims were part of a community of u. S. Mexico dual citizens. Drug traffickers came under immediate suspicion, but the massacre was barbarous even for them. It stunned the nation reeling from a series of violent incidents in recent weeks. Lambastedent has been for the botched attempt to arrest a son of the former cartel leader. President trump offered to help mexico strike back. This is time for mexico with the help of the United States to wage war on drug cartels and wipe them off the face of the earth. He called the mexican president tuesday afternoon to offer support. He thanked trump, but said pursuing the criminals was a matter of sovereignty for mexico. Illinois andfrom linda on the democrats line. Caller my name is linda. I was calling about how the blatant disregard for law is to me because we have laws in place, a constitution in place, courts in place and people can choose not to testify, people can be threatened not to testify and i wonder what is the purpose of law at that level and on our crazy. We have it is if someone breaks the law, they should pay the penalty just like anybody else. I believe in the future that the criminals are going to use the avoid all of the corruption and the things that happen in their lives. I believe the whistleblower. Hould be protected i believe the impeachment should go forward and we just want a democracy. I also believe if the united it an is divided, isnt old saying that a house divided cannot stand . The United States of america if we are not united in america. Host gregory is next, republican line. Caller thank you for having me. It kind of a housekeeping issue, i noticed today watching the program that a number of democrats are calling on the independent line and commenting as well. I know that is nothing cspan can deal with, you have to rely on the honesty of your callers, but it is telling people are complaining about the president s honesty and they are not honest enough to tell us what party they are a part of. It is dangerous to allow particularly federal Government Agencies and congressional committees to carry out star permit proceedings and unidentified accusers to calm come before them and make accusations against any individuals. This is not only contrary to our constitutional guarantee of a fair trial, it is contrary to magna, passion magna carta and goes back to magna carta and goes back to roman law. The counter i have heard is trump is not on trial. Justice kavanagh was not on was stillo he allowed to face his accusers. When they came forward, that there accusations fell apart. That is what sunlight is for. Fix lies that happen in darkness. Points have been made about this individuals identity already being note are very valid. In the beltway, he is known. I dont see a problem with hislosing everything about personal work history and biases without disclosing his name. If reporters want to ferret out who this individual is, fine. We should know the biases and bigotry of any individual isempting to what this is coextra a nonelectoral up and taking back the votes of the people in 2016. If that is what is going on here in this impeachment inquiry, we need to know everybodys motives. What isprogram note of ahead on the cspan networks, some of our live coverage includes today at 9 30 on cspan 3, bring you a hearing looking at protecting veterans from scams. Lso at cspan. Org on cspan at 10 00, we will bring you a judiciary hearing looking at reauthorizing the 2015 usa freedom act which bands the collection bans the president ahead of that special election on the 16th for the governors race in louisiana. Well have that tonight. The president tweeting about last nights results in kentucky. Even though the governors race still up in the air, based on kentucky results, tweets the president , Mitch Mcconnell will win big in kentucky next year. Renee is next in starkville, mississippi. On the independent line. Caller hello. Can you hear me . Host we can, go ahead. Caller Julian Assange is sitting in a jail in the u. K. As a publisher of leaks because the previous president , number 44, had a fetish for prosecuting journalists for conspiring with leakers under the espionage act. I am a true independent and i have a memory longer than democrats would like me to have. Remember when 44, obama, was prosecuting journalists, james rosen of fox news, for coconspiracy under the espionage act, with a leaker from the department of justice. President s have no obligation to keep the identity of leakers or whistleblowers, whatever, keep it under wraps because host all right. Well let you go there. One more quick call here. East orange, new jersey. Tanya on our democrats line. Caller good morning. Thank you for taking my call. Id like to say that, no, the whistleblower identity should not be let out. His identity should be protected by all costs. He should be allowed to be able to tell what happened in consideration that everything he said was corroborated by outside sources. Thank you. Host thanks. More ahead on impeachment and other issues. Well be joined next by Molly Reynolds of the Brookings Institution for a oneonone. Some Historical Perspective on the impeachment process. Shell join us next and later on, ed whelan of the ectics and Public Policy center ectics and Public Policy center, joins us to talk about President Trumps impact on the federal judiciary. This week on cspan3 at 8 00 eesh, watch samples of our history coverage. Tonight, africanamerican history. Thursday, a look at past impeachment proceedings for president s Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon and bill clinton. And friday, the american revolution. American history tv features all week at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan3. Sunday night on book tv at 9 00 eastern, on afterwords, former speaker of the house, newt gingrich, with his latest book, trump versus china. I dont think the chinese have any great planning certainly in the next 20 to 25 years to try to take us on militarily in a traditional sense. But i do think theyre trying to build the kind of cybercapabilities and i think this is part of where huawei is actually an Extraordinary National asset for them. And i think that theyre trying to build a capability in space, both of which have global implications. Then at 10 00 eastern, New York University journalism professor talks about her new book, diversity inc. What im not optimistic about is white americas ability to ee past the fiction of africanamericans, of latinx people, the centuries old demeaning images of people and how that has as much to do with the lack of diversity. Watch book tv every weekend on cspan2. Washington journal continues. Host we welcome back to washington journal Molly Reynolds. Brookings institution govern studies senior fellow. Here to talk about impeachment from a Historical Perspective. And give us an idea of what the process has looked like and what it could look like in the future. Obviously a lot of similarities and differences between now and, lets say, the most recent one, president clintons. In this stage of the process, how would you compare it to the clinton impeachment . Guest i think the most important thing to remember in comparing where we are now to the clinton impeachment is that in the clinton impeachment case, this stage of the process, this gathering of evidence, was largely done actually not by congress. The factual material on which the impeachment inquiry was based largely arrived to the house of representatives in hundreds of boxes from ken star, his investigation at the independent counsel. So Congress Needed to do much less of its own investigative work. So when we hear about depositions and interviews that are happening on capitol hill, that piece of the process that the house itself is doing this time is really its just a very different set of circumstances than what we had during the clinton impeachment. Host you wrote a couple of weeks ago, as this process is in the early stage, in the New York Times, an opinion piece, this truth that the white house letter just laid bare. This is the letter that the white House Counsel sent to Democratic Leaders on the hill. This is before the house passed its impeachment resolution of last week. What was that truth you were getting at that it laid bare for this process . Guest i was really trying to make clear that the process arguments that were hearing many republicans make are really meant not to necessarily make substantial changes to the process, we have seen some of those happen since then, but really to pass the issue as one of fairness and one of kind of what are the president s rights, what are congress rights, and to really shift the political terrain. Because fundamentally at the end of the day, impeachment is as much a political process as it is anything else. Host that resolution that passed last week, sort of setting the standards, laying out the path ahead for the impeachment inquiry. Do you think it cleared up some of those questions . Guest it addressed some of them. One of the major criticisms we had heard from republicans before that resolution was adopted was around the ability of the Minority Party to request subpoenas. That was clarified in the resolution, questions about public hearings, depositions. But at the end of the day, since last week, weve seen different process arguments being made. I expect well continue to see a lot of the criticism levied at democrats from republicans on those process grounds. Host the arguments youre hearing from both sides this time around, did we hear arguments on the other side 21 years ago that are similar . Guest i like to say theres very little new under the congressional sun. We do we have heard a lot of sort of repeat arguments come up. Its also worth noting that there are differences in the way the house works now than it did 21 years ago. So 21 years ago, most House Committee chairs didnt have the ability to subpoena witnesses on their own. Now they do. We had different sets of rules and procedures around depositions. So there are things that have changed procedurally and certainly lots has changed politically in 21 years, that means that were in pretty different territory now than we were in 1998 and 1999. Host Molly Reynolds is our guest to talk about impeachment and give us a Historical Perspective. Particularly versus the clintonned a the clinton impeachment effort of 1998. We welcome your calls and comments. 202477488,000 is the number for democrats. 2027488920 one for republicans and forment ins and all others, thats 2027488002 you can also 2027488003. At the constitution says very little about it. Article one, section two, clause five. The house of representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers and shall have the sole power of impeachment and, yes, thats how they spelled choose back in those days. So how did the body of knowledge or rules around impeachment grow from that point . Guest like much of house rules and procedures, its really developed over time and they sense that we have expectations about what is likely to happen this time. Its based in part on what weve seen in the past. But we have very few cases to look at. Particularly when we think ahead to a possible senate trial, we know some things about what that might look like but theres a lot we dont know, in part because the way that this has played out in the past has really involved kind of the two leaders of the two parties and the Senate Sitting down and working out agreements around a lot of the details. So its just really difficult to know a lot of the details of where we might be going. Host what does the president and his many of his supporters have criticized the lack of, quote, due process, in the democratics effort. What do the rules, what does the constitution say about due process in the case of impeachment . Guest so i think its important to remember that the stage of the process that were at right now in the house is still this information gathering stage. Were getting ready, i think, to move to a stage of presenting and considering the evidence. And thats the place where historically weve seen many more of these Due Process Rights afforded to the president as part of an inquiry and one of the things that the resolution that was adopted last week did was provide for some of those Due Process Rights for the president , when the process moves to the house Judiciary Committee. Which is the panel that has responsibility for considering articles of impeachment before they would go to the floor. So we see things like the president and his counsel would have the right to attend hearings chingt. The president s couble would have the right to question witnesses, would be able to propose consideration of new evidence or additional witnesses. So in that way, that part of the process looks quite similar to the procedures set out for use during both the nixon case and the clinton case. Host its been pointed out that one of the articles of impeachment that didnt pass the house in the clinton impeachment was the article against obstruction. That the president , president clinton, failed to respond to written questions by the house Judiciary Committee. I wanted to play you comments of adam schiff yesterday, monday, and his view on subpoenas and how the administration, in his view, in defying subpoenas could be an obstruction of justice. Adam schiff. We had additional scheduled depositions with the top lawyer for the National Security council, as well as mr. Blair from the office of management and budget and someone who worked closely with Mick Mulvaney on both of them, defied congressional subpoenas and refused to appear for their scheduled depositions. As has been the case with other witnesses who have done the same thing. This will be further evidence of an effort by the administration to obstruct the lawful and constitutional duties of congress. I would also say, and we expect the witnesses who have been subpoenaed to come in this afternoon, also to be noshows. This will only further add to the body of evidence on a potential obstruction of congress charge against the president. Indeed, in the nixon impeachment, there was an article of impeachment based on the obstruction of congress that itemized each of the subpoenas that the white house had defied. Well, today we have four additional subpoenas to add to the list of a potential charge involving the president of the United States and his obstruction of our constitutional duties. Host sounds like its headed in that direction. One of those articles could be an obstruction charge. Guest right. So i think, i mean, one thing that we are still learn about is kind of what the House Democrats strategy is on what the articles might look like. Weve seen obviously a lot of focus on what happened with ukraine and then as mr. Schiff indicates, i think theres an emerging sense that there is potential grounds for an obstruction of congress charge. Weve seen, as he mentions, a number of witnesses who have refused to comply with subpoenas recently. Weve also seen that throughout the year. Its not a new Development Just in the past several weeks in the ukraine inquiry. Week seen other cases where members of the Trump Administration have refused to comply with congressional requests for subpoenas or information. So i do think that that, again, thinking about congress constitutionally, i think that institutionally, i think there may be interest on the part of members on asserting their authority and power by making clear that its not acceptable for a president to completely stonewall congress. Host whats your understanding of the process at this point in terms of will the Intelligence Committee just create a report and not recommend articles of impeachment, leave that up to the Judiciary Committee . Guest that is my understanding. The resolution adopted last week provides for one or more open hearings by the Intelligence Committee. To discuss some of the material that theyve uncovered, doing these depositions over the past several weeks. And other investigative work. Remembering there are other committees who have also been doing investigative work that may bear on potential articles. There are six committees who have been working on the inquiry in total. As the retslusion provides for resolution provides for, those committees will all transfer material that theyve collected to the Judiciary Committee, which then will be responsible for determining what articles of impeachment might look like. Host as far as we know at this point, those committees, they focus their investigation, still the ukraine, the phone call and issues around ukraine aid . Guest thats been the primary focus of late. The question of whether an ultimate set of articles will include any other issues, including obstruction of congress, but perhaps material from the Mueller Report, that sort of thing, i think will that is something that will unfold over the next several weeks. Host lets go to calls. We go first to our democrats line. Burleson, texas. Tony, good morning. Youre on with Molly Reynolds. Caller good morning. First off, i want to say, thanks to washington journal. It seems to be our only way of talking to the world. I want to put it out there that im very concerned about our president. I think we need to bring our soldiers back because i think that theyre holding our president hostage and his family to make him do things that he dont want to do as a president. Such as mess with iran and north korea and russia and the such. Im very concerned about that. I think we need to surround the president with our soldiers and make it totally safe for him and first prove to the world that hes not being held hostage by the deep state. Host thats tony in texas. Well go to kevin in brownsberg, indiana. On impeachment. Good morning. On the independent line. Caller hey, how are you doing . Host doing well, thank you. Game, i know in the drug when theres an informant, they never reveal the informant for the safety of the informant. People keep arguing about the process being behind closed doors at first. If they wouldnt have done it that way, it wouldnt have came out. I believe hes the ambassador of the e. U. Who changed his statement. If they would have been public from the getgo, they would have been able to corroborate their statements and we wouldnt have gotten this far. Another thing is, people keep attacking the process. But not saying anything about the crime that possibly was committed. To me thats where the substance is at. If we dont protect this whistleblower, people will not come forward. With the way this president acts and the way please excuse me, i dont want to put everybody in a jar, but the people that follow him, i really believe that if the whistleblower name comes out, that they will do something to this person or this persons family. Thank you for taking my call. Host ok. Molly reynolds. Guest the caller points out that one of the reasons that we have seen democrats conduct with republican participation, to be clear, republicans on the relevant committees, intelligence, oversight and Foreign Affairs have been invited to and in many cases participated in the depositions, asking questions. One of the reasons to do those interviews behind closed doors is to prevent witnesses from trying to coordinate their stories before the interview. Another reason is that there are often cases where individuals are simply less willing to share information if theyre doing so publicly. The idea of using private get itions in private to information from congressional witnesses is not unique to this inquiry. It can be a pretty routine part of congressional investigations. So, again, its worth kind putting whats been happening in context of how congress frequently operates when they are trying to get to the bottom of Something Like this episode with ukraine. Host to be clear on the clinton investigation, clinton impeachment, the star investigation was completely done behind there werent public hearings. Guest absolutely. Again, that material and what ken star found in that investigation is really what established most of the factual basis for the impeachment. There were some hearings in the judiciary hearing after the star materials were turned over to congress. But by and large, most of the factfinding part of the clinton impeachment process was done not by congress itself but by ken star. Host well remind our viewers and radio lessnessers that have we have linked on the website to the testimonies that have been released. So far you can find that on our impeachment page at cspan. Org. Rory is next. Republican line in california. Caller i have two questions. First, is schiff making up another whistleblower or somebody that doesnt exist . And second, on the impeachment itself, i dont believe its going to be done, but if it was, i think its only good for these four years. In the 1960s they had somebody impeached not at the president ial level, they were impeached, thrown out, and then the same people voted him back. Now, is there the law hasnt changed since the 1960s. If he gets impeached, trump, he could be voted back and his impeachment would not go on from there. Thats it. Guest so, its worth remembering there are two stages to this process. Theres the part that happens in the house, where the house considers a vote first in committee and then potentially on the floor, one or more articles of impeachment. If thats approved, one or more articles of impeachment, the case goes over to the senate for a trial. Like the constitution being largely silent on house rules for a trial, its largely silent on senate rules as well. But one thing that we do know is that it takes 2 3 of the senators present to convict and remove the president from office. In a situation where they did do that, after having heard the evidence, chose to convict the president , there is the option to have an additional vote that would disqualify the president from holding future federal office. But we wouldnt get there unless we got to the point where there was a conviction in the senate, to get to the point where we have a senate trial, we would first have to have articles approved in the house. Host President Trump tweeting about some of the testimony thats been released so far. Tweeting this this morning host to catherine in cleaves, ohio, on the democrats line. Caller good morning, cspan. Host good morning. Caller im a 71yearold woman. Who am shocked, simply shocked, that republicans in this day and age have thrown out constitutional law, rule of law, and high moral standards. Im shocked because these are the people that used to look you in the face in a camera and tell you that these were what they stood for. And the question i would like to have, but before i ask the question i would like to say this, that all you trump supporters, former trump supporters, we will welcome you back into the american open arms willingly and love you and just act like it was a mistake that you made, now youve come to your senses and now youre going to be an american again. And my question is, why would men and women in the house and in the senate give away their good name for this president . He does not protect anybody but himself. Hes never stood by anybody, he has fellow friends that are now in prison. He has some that are on trial that will probably go to prison. And yet he stands for nobody. So the people in the senate, in the house, you need to take a quick look in the mirror. Hes not going to represent you. Hes not going to be there for you. He stands for nobody but himself. Host thats catherine in ohio. Molly reynolds, let me ask you about going back to president nixon and president clinton. President trump has asked that members of his administration not not told members not to testify, did president s nixon and clinton invoke executive privilege at that time . Guest executive privilege played a role at various points in both the nixon and clinton impeachments but its still an area where we dont have great settled law from the federal courts around sort of what the boundaries of executive privilege in that case of, frankly, most congressional oversight, but impeachment specifically, and so i think thats one big open question. For this inquiry going forward. One challenge there is that the timeline on which courts tend to operate in adjudicating so adjudicating some of these questions, versus the timeline that House Democrats say they intend to operate may not be compatible. The courts are much slower moving than congress. So the question of whether we get any of these cases around executive privilege issues or things like congressional access to the mueller grand jury material, whether those are resolved on a timetable that makes that information useful to the impeachment inquiry i think remains to be seen. Host so you could have those unresolved. Potentially the house drawing up an article on obstruction of justice, etc. , and the issue of executive privilege not having been decided upon by the courts and likely ultimately the Supreme Court. Guest right. Even if you think about one example, case, which is the case involving an individual who worked for, i believe, john bolton, on the National Security council, who was asked to federal court for a ruling on whether he needs to comply with a subpoena, that case is, i believe, scheduled to be argued the first or second week of december. And some of the reporting weve seen on when the house would like to bring articles to the floor is, you know, the third or fourth week of december. So the idea that we could get to a point where some of these legal questions are unresolved but the house is moving ahead with its articles anyway i think is a real possibility. Host we had one of the managers of the clinton impeachment process on our program yesterday. And he was asked about the possible lack of due process in this impeachment effort. Heres what he had to say. The assumption is the due process clause in the nstitution applies process clause in the constitution applies to everybody and everything. But as far as anything explicit, nothing. The basic thrust of it is that the house has the power, the congress has the power, of impeachment. And the rules are set by the house. So while i may be sympathetic and i am to the president s concern that hes not being treated fairly, that hes not being treated the way that a citizen privately would be in a courtroom, if he were being charged with a crime, thats not clear whether or not the u. S. Supreme court would ever find there was due process required here the same way. Because, again, the constitution gives this power of setting all the boundaries to congress. On the other hand, its silent as to procedures like this. And inherently in american history, due process has been accord. So i think thats what this process is right about now. The president rightfully claiming that hes not being given the same kind of opportunities that were given to president clinton or in the past to president nixon, and hes now saying, hey, this is not right. I should have had an opportunity to present and had a chance to cross examine and its clear that theres discretion, maybe theyll give it to him in the future, under the rule that was passed last week on the floor. But its not mandated, its not directed. Host Molly Reynolds, weve covered some of this ground already so far, but what did you hear from congressman mccollum . Guest the point that he makes about the constitution being largely silent on many of these specific procedural questions is absolutely right. As is the observation that the federal courts in the past have been quite deferential to congress and Congress Power to set its own rules, including in the context of impeachment. So, the idea that the federal courts might step in and say, you know, try to dictate impeachmentrelated procedures, i think would be a break from past precedent. On this question of whats actually likely to happen with the exercise of the Due Process Rights that the resolution adopted last week, grants the prets dent, that for me is a big precedent, that for me is a big open question. One of the more interesting parts of that resolution was a provision that says that if the president and his legal team are unlawfully not complying with requests, that that the Judiciary Committee chair would be able to deny the president s request for witnesses and participation in the hearings. We have very little idea of how that might actually shake out. I think there are, as the congressman observes, i think there are a lot of open questions on what exactly this could all look like in the coming weeks. Host to your knowledge, has the Supreme Court ever ruled on a case involving the impeachment of any federal official, judge or otherwise . Guest we have some federal precedent on some of these questions. I think on this question of the ability of the house and senate to set their own procedures, theres a case that involves a federal judge named nixon, not to be confused with president nixon. Where the judge said. That because the senate had used a committee for part of its impeachment trial as opposed to a full deliberation by the full senate, that that was in violation of the constitution and there again the Supreme Court said no, that this is a situation where the congress ability to set its own rules and procedures has takes precedence over the specifics of what happened in that case. Host well go to j. D. Next in maryland. Republican line. Caller thanks for having me on. Molly, good morning to you. Guest good morning. Caller just a quick history lesson. A federal judge by the name of judge fortius from louisiana was impeached a few years ago. Jonathan turly pled his case before congress. But thats another story. It seems to me you and catherine from ohio take the selective moral high ground, especially when it came to attorney general holder who received a congressional subpoena and he didnt comply with that. Whats your opinion with that one . Did you [indiscernible] when he chose not to comply with that subpoena . Guest so, as you point out, the question of noncompliance with congressional subpoenas isnt a new one. We have seen a lot of these disputes crop up during this year. But there are other high profile cases, the one you referenced involving former attorney general eric holder, there was an earlier high profile case during the george w. Bush administration involving white house chief of staff, josh bolton and white House Counsel harriet miers. One lesson that we sort of take away from all of these cases is that, again, to the extent that congress has come to rely on the federal courts as one of its tools to try to compel cooperation from the executive branch with requests for testimony and information is that the timeline on which the federal courts proceed really is just not often compatible with the timeline on which congress is trying to do things. So, we get when Congress Tries to use its powers, using the other branches, that can really limit in the end its ability to do things in a timely fashion. Host democrats line in colorado. Caller good morning. Good morning, america. Host youre on the air. Go ahead. Caller my friends call me branson. Im a disabled american. Served in the vietnam war. Born in mexico. More patriot than draft dodger donald trump. Im a graduate of San Diego State university, from the school of social work. Im an activist. I speak on a denver Radio Station twice a week. Largely speaking on corruption n both sides of the aisle. Americans should unite, our corrupt president should be impeached on both sides of the aisle. By refusing to impeach, you are encouraging corruption in government at the highest level. President s do not walk on water. Threeparty system, we have a threeparty system. Wow. Wake up. This is a classic example of divide and conquer. Host Molly Reynolds, going back to the clinton impeachment. This last vote on the resolution for impeachment was largely party line. There were a couple of crossers, but largely party line. Was that the case in the vote on articles of impeachment in the house in 1998 . Was it Party Line Vote . Guest it was largely but not exclusively a Party Line Vote. We saw some members cross the aisle in 1998. I think the thing to remember when we think about the kind of partisan dynamics at play in the vote, at play in kind of the callers comments is that even since the late 1990s, the degree of partisanship and polarization in congress has increased significantly. So when we look at the political dynamics that were at play in the clinton impeachment, theres just a lot thats different about our political system now than there was then. I think a lot about how at the start of the clinton impeachment trial in the senate, the initial set of detailed procedures for how that was going to work were agreed to unanimously by all 100 senators. And the idea of us seeing something similar to that should this make it to a trial stage in the senate, because its really difficult for people to imagine, so i think its really important to remember that even just looking, you know, 21 years is not that much time, but the amount of change that weve seen in the political system and the partisanship and the polarization i think has real consequences for what is likely to happen here. Host nbc news has a piece thats titled, what is impeachment, how does it work, 10 facts to know. They write that the house has impeached 19 people. Mostly federal judges. Two president s, Andrew Johnson and bill clinton were impeached, but the senate voted not to convict either of them. Nixon resigned after the Judiciary Committee approved three articles of impeachment, but before the house, the full house voted on them. And they write further that the constitution provides that a president can be impeached for, quote, treason, bribery or other gh crimes and miss demeaners misdemeanors. The constitution does not define high crimes and misdemeanors. Do we have any idea what the founders meant by that term . Guest i dont think we have a great sense. I tend to subscribe to the theory of former Vice President and president gerald ford who said that an Impeachable Offense is whatever the majority of the house of representatives decides it is at a given moment in history. I think that really emphasizes the degree to which impeachment is at its heart a political process as much as anything else. And that where we end up with articles is really about, you know, what does the house of representatives, who has the sole power to do this, decide theyre going to look like . Host heres barbara, oak bluffs, massachusetts, on the democrats line. Caller first of all, great job, molly. Really giving us the facts and the context. I got a couple of questions for you. First is, if the house impeaches and the senate acquits, is there anything to prevent the senate from turning around and censuring President Trump as an alternative to convicting him of the impeachment . Thats number one. Number two is, im confused about the whole issue about the timeline and the proximity to the 2020 elections. Were constantly hearing in the coverage that its a problem for rolls s if the process over into 2020. And it gets nearer and nearer to the election. Based on the notion that, ok, were going to have an election, so the whole country will get to vote in november of 2020, obviously. But somehow i have the feeling that were mixing two issues up that we need to distinguish. Because leave the issue of the proximity to 2020 election aside , the process of impeaching and convicting or acquiting still nonetheless it seems to me should go forward regardless of the proximity to november, 2020. And im wondering what your thoughts are about that. And lastly, cspan, while i have you, could you please do a whole morning on National Security . What is National Security . Because its a highlevel be a strax and i believe most americans dont have a sense of what that is. We know what national is, we know what security is, but National Security, do us some programming on how the concept rose and einvolved over time because were in a globalized era. What does nation mean now versus what it first meant . Host good suggestion there. Ets let molly respond to you. Guest theyre good questions. On the question of censure. This is something we heard talked about during the clinton impeachment inquiry. The possibility of censure as an alternative to conviction. I think that that is a possibility. Theres nothing that would prevent the senate from doing so. It would censure a resolution would be subject to the same kinds of usual procedural hurdles that we see many things in the Senate Running to. But its certainly something that, as a procedural matter, we could see politically. I dont know if the support would be there for even taking the vote. But that remains to be seen. On the question of 2020, i think there are sort of two pieces. One is the political piece, which is what the caller spoke to. But second, frankly, is a scheduling piece that involves the fact that if we have a trial in the senate in early 2020, there are a number of current members of the u. S. Senate who are running for the president ial nomination and their Constitutional Responsibilities to participate in an impeachment trial would have them here in washington for large chunks of time, potentially in january and february of 2020. Majority leader mcconnell has mentioned this challenge a number of times in recent days. And so for me thats actually the most approximate and soonest consequence. Host this is ralph in palm harbor, florida. Republican line. Good morning. Caller hi, good morning. Host youre on. Go ahead. Caller i have a little different view of whats happening here. I understand impeachment must meet the criteria of high crimes and misdemeanors. That bar was established as something thats interpretive. What does high crimes how is it defined . How are misdemeanors defined . I look at the situation with the whistleblower, that is merely the shadow for the substance. The real substance here is whether or not the president of the United States and the United States government has the right, before providing money to any country this the world, that they are not corrupt, that they are favoring freedom and independence of their people. That is the critical thing. If a democrat if the democrats really believe that theyre going to build an impeachment clause or articles of impeachment on that article, that will crash and burn. The discussion that has been eld showing the content of President Trumps discussion with the ukraine prime minister, i think his name is citizensky, indicates that there was no zelensky, indicates that there was no quid pro quo. If you look at the idea of quid pro quo is determining whether or not we should give a corrupt country money versus not giving it, im in favor of quid pro quo. Host well let you go there. Molly reynolds, any response . Guest again, this goes back to the issue of what is a high crime and misdemeanor and how do we determine at any given moment in time what rises to that level . Again, at the end of the day, thats a task given to the house of representatives by the constitution to figure out what that means. And this, you know, specific set of house members will have to do that. Again, what exactly they decide that might go in a set of articles of impeachment, whether theyre just about what happened in ukraine, whether they also include obstruction of congress, whether they include other things, other conduct by the president and his administration, well have to see. But this is one of the thorny questions at the heart of any impeachment inquiry. What does it mean for something to be a high crime and misdemeaner . t on twitter were at cspanwj. Host michael on our independent line. Morris, illinois. Go ahead. Caller good morning. I hope youll give me the same amount of time that you have given to some of these other people. I have a comment and a question for ms. Reynolds. The comment, i voted for trump, i voted for obama in 2008, i voted for a third neart 2012. Now, party in 2012. Now, it seems to me, and ms. Reynolds commented on what gerald ford said, that this is really whatever the house of representatives calls it, so my real question is, this is nothing more than political theater. The there really value in exposing of these corrupt acts by trump . Because i support him on shipping out the illegal aliens but i dont support him on refusing to answer subpoenas from congress. It seems to me that i mean, its not going to go anywhere in the senate with these politicians who have no morals whatsoever on either side. But there is some value, i think, in exposing the utter corruption that were awash in in washington. So i want ms. Reynolds to comment on the value of this process as educational to the american voters. Host appreciate that. Go ahead. Guest i think thats one of the most important functions of congressional investigations generally. Not only in the context of an impeachment inquiry, but, again, thinking about the efforts by congress, this congress, previous congresses, to get information and witness testimony and documents from the executive branch about what the executive branch is doing, thats one of congress chief responsibilities under the constitution in our separation of powers system. And part of what were seeing now in the impeachment inquiry is a sort of advancing of that goal. In this case, the house may decide that this rises to the level of impeachable conduct, but at the end of the day, a lot of whats important about this is uncovering the information and sharing it with the public. Host lets get one more quick call here. We go to elizabeth in turner falls turners falls, massachusetts. Caller good morning. My question is about what to do about ignoring the subpoenas. It seems the general consensus of opinion, and you confirmed it yourself this morning, is that to turn to the courts would take too long. But ever since this has started, ive been wondering about Susan Macdougal and the white water hearings. She went to jail right away, if i remember correctly, and i was wondering what process that led to her going to jail right away and why that cant be implemented with so many people ignoring the subpoenas. Thank you very much. Host ok. Guest i dont recall the details of that case specifically. One thing thats worth noting, though, about kind of where we are in this struggle between congress and the executive branch over witness testimony is that we actually have seen over the past several weeks a number of witnesses comply with congressional subpoenas and eye peer for depositions appear for depositions. I think one of the major consequences of the shift in focus in the inquiry to what happened in ukraine specifically is that that has meant that members of Congress Want to hear from a set of people who are more whose incentives arent as closely aligned with President Trumps, as some of the individuals who have chosen to stonewall and to defy subpoenas. So weve actually seen over the past several weeks the process work a little bit more like it has historically. While also seeing some witnesses just continue to refuse to comply. Host Molly Reynolds, senior fellow in governance at the Brookings Institution. As always, great to have you with us this morning. Guest thanks for having me. Host President Trump will be noting today the success rate in the senate of judicial appointments. We will be joined next by ed whelan, who is with the ethics and Public Policy center, to talk about President Trumps impact on the federal judiciary. Weve been covering events from washington, d. C. And around the country so you can make up your own mind. Created by cable in 1979, cspan is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. Cspan, your unfiltered view of overnment. At cspan. Org, were making it easier for you to watch cspans coverage of the impeachment inquiry and the administrations response. If you miss any of our live coverage, go to our impeachment inquiry page at cspan. Org impeachment for video on demand. And weve added a tally from the Associated Press showing where each House Democrat stands on the impeachment inquiry against President Trump. Follow the impeachment inquiry on our web page, at cspan. Org impeachment. It its your fast and easy way to watch cspans unfiltered coverage any time. Washington journal mugs are available at cspans new online store. Go to cspanstore. Org. Check out the washington journal mugs and see all of the cspan products. Washington journal continues. Host ed sed with us. Hes president of the ethics and Public Policy center at harvard law schooltrained attorney and author, coeditor of a book about Justice Scalia. Here to talk about the success that the Trump Administration has had in nominating and appointing personnel to the federal bench. Whats the tally, whats your tally so far, how the president s doing . Guest its been a very impressive record so far. I think folks on both sides of the aisle can agree on that. Some of us celebrate it. Others lament it. But you have, in addition to two Supreme Court justices, you have some 43 appellate judges. Judges appointed to the courts of appeals. Thats double the number where president obama was at the same stage of his presidency. Eight years ago. Another judge to be confirmed today, i think, another one tomorrow. And you have 100 or so district judges. Slightly ahead of president obamas pace of eight years ago. Host we understand President Trump will be celebrating this today or at least noting it at the event at the white house. The headline from fox news, trump nears milestone, new milestone with judicial appointments. Aside from the obvious advantage in the u. S. Senate, the majority in the u. S. Senate, whats been behind this success rate of the Trump Administration . Guest there are a number of factors. President trump and the white house deserve credit for making this a high priority. I would say a huge factor was thenmajority leader harry reids abolition of the judiciary filibuster in 2013. What this meant is that if you have control of the senate, you dont need any votes from the other party. Democrats had launched the filibuster against president george w. Bushs appellate nominees in 2003. Republicans under obama returned the favor to a much lesser degree and harry reid said, enough, abolished the filibuster. That means you can get to a final vote on these nominees without clearing the 60vote threshold. Host looking back to the appointees from the bush administration, clinton, clinton, bush and now the Obama Administration, and the numbers that President Trumps first four years, or first three years of the white house, can one look at those judges appointed by president obama, president bush or president clinton and say, well, these were clinton judges or bush judges and they rule typically in this sort of fashion . Guest well, thats a big question. It would take a lot of study to explore that. I think there are issues on which differences of judiciary philosophy really matter. A lot of cases what you want are good, smart judges. One thing i emphasize about President Trumps appointees to the federal Appellate Courts is they are very, she high caliber. They have anent very, very highle caliber. They have excellent ratings and a great deal of experience. Its not just the numbers, its high quality. Host what has he also benefited from the fact that just as a matter of time, judges age out of the circuit and that theyre more theres more availabilities on both the appellate and circuit level . Guest that happens for everyone so i dont think thats been a big factor. One factor thats been overlooked is really what id call the maturation and the flourishing of the conservative legal movement. If you compare the number of candidates who make themselves available in this administration to what president bush had, the numbers are vastly greater. Part of that is because of the filibuster. I can make myself available and get confirmed promptly rather than having my practice tied up in limbo for years. But a lot of that also is that you have generations of law students who learned about textualism and originalism from the opinions of Justice Scalia and thomas who network through the Federalist Society and who had great clerkships, worked as solicitors general in their states, or as a state Supreme Court justice, argued Supreme Court cases. Folks of unquestionable qualifications. Host our guest is ed whelan. Were talking about the Trump Administration judiciary appointments, hitting a milestone. 2027488000 is the number to call for democrats. 2027488001 for republicans. And for independents and others, 2027488002. President trump will be at the white house today, an event on judiciary nominations. That coming up this afternoon. Well cover that live here on cspan. At 3 00 p. M. Eastern. Reporting on what may be ahead, what the impact of the president s picks may be, pbs with the headline, trumps conservative picks will impact the court for decades. They write that the house impeachment inquiry has brought most legislative work in congress to a halt. Except for one issue. Judiciary nominations. Senate republicans have continued making steady progress filling the federal bench. Bolstering President Trumps record on what is regarded as a key issue for republican voters. One that could play a significant role in the upcoming president ial election. Paul butler, a professor at georgetown law saying that President Trumps impact on the federal judiciary has been profound. Quote, if theres a contest about the future of law, of judiciary interpretations, republicans have won. Generaly, how would you describe the judiciary philosophy that the Trump Administration has looked for in its federal nominations . Guest basically theyre the principles of tectualism and originalism which simply put mean that the words and laws matter. The provisions of the constitution, including the amendments, should be interpreted according with what to what they meant when they were adopted. The same for laws that are enacted today or 40 years ago. Its really a focus on text and applying text neutraly and impartially and not indulging ones policy preferences as the alternative favored by the left. The theory of the socalled living constitution invites judges and justices to do. Host we have calls waiting for you. Well go to sandra in alabama, on the independent line. Caller the thing i have, especially with the Supreme Courts and these lower courts, like if President Trump wants to do something, they hold him. I know it took just one woman to change the whole Supreme Court concerning bible reading and prayer in schools. One woman. And i see all these activists out who are paid to be out there, if all we people could be out there at the same time, youd see less than 1 10 of the population thats out there showing theirselves, we have no way to fight. No way at all to fight. And the Supreme Court to me has caused this country to go downhill because they brought in abortion, they took prayer out of school and america is reaping the benefits of it now. We have a godless country. So thank you very much. Host ed whelan. Guest i think its true that the Supreme Court has been a major player in the culture wars and i would argue an aggressor in the culture wars. Imposing on, over the decades, on issue after issue, the policies preferred by certain elites, and taken these matters away from the democratic processes in the states. So i think that is has been a big part of the problem and has explained the escalation of the judiciary confirmation wars. Host to our republican line, this is heath in camp hill, alabama. Caller yes. Mr. Whelan. Host go ahead. Youre on the air. Ask your question go. Ahead. Were listening. Caller i do have one thing id like to ask mr. Whelan. Does mount kisko mean anything to you . Guest i believe theres a case with that name. But i cant its a city in new york, i believe. Im not sure i can tell you anything more about that. Caller i just thought maybe you folks owned a moving company. Guest nope. Host all right. To nancy, concord, new hampshire. Democrats line. Go ahead. Caller hi. Im just really curious about this broken system. Because Mitch Mcconnell denied barack obama a hearing for merrick garland. You stand on the constitution and this judiciary stuff, yet you smirk and turn your back on the constitution when the democrat is in power. These judges are being written about being unqualified, totally unquailified, and theyre getting lifetime positions. How do you justify that . Thats not democracy in this country. And thats not what our Founding Fathers expected. The punitive rulings, i mean, john roberts is going to go down as a disgrace to chief justice because of the way hes running his courts currently. I mean, look at whats happened with the voting rights. The Voter Suppression thats gone on. You dont talk about that. And your judges are happy about it. Host ok. Ed whelan . Guest theres a lot there. Let me address the first question. The caller of course is right, that senator mcconnell kept the scalia vacancy open through 2016. I think shes wrong to suggest that there was any constitutional obligation to do otherwise. What senator mcconnell did in 2016, basically been baked into the cake in the process, so to speak, for decades. Joe biden threatened the same thing in 1992, if a vacancy arose then. Senator schumer and reid said the same thing in 2007 and 2008. This was the same vacancy since Clarence Thomas was nominated in 1991 in which you had a president of one party making a nomination to a senate controlled by the other party. Exactly the configuration that invites conflict and what happened was entirely predictable and president obamas white House Counsel, an event in which i took part with her, said that she would have recommended the same thing, had this situation been reversed. Host what if theres an opening on the Supreme Court of vacancy in 2020, what should senator mcconnell do . Guest hes been quite clear what hell do. Hell move expeditiously to confirm that nominee. You would not have the oppositeparty situation which was critical to the situation in 2016 when he said, let the voters decide, because we have a split situation. Under this hypothetical, you dont have the split situation. Host senator mcconnell joined President Trump onstage in louisville on monday night at the Campaign Rally there. And touted the success rate so far in the senate. Of judicial nominees. Heres what he said. Working together we are changing the federal courts forever. [cheers and applause] nobodys done more to change the court system in the history of our country than donald trump. Cheers and applause] and mr. President , we are going to keep on doing it. My motto is, leave no vacancy behind. Host Mitch Mcconnell says we have changed the federal courts forever. Judicial philosophy . Structure . What do you think he means . Guest well, i think its judicial philosophy. First and foremost. I think hes referring especially to the appointments of Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. In the lower courts theres been a great start. The fact of the matter is 43 federal appellate judges whom President Trump has appointed amount to 1 4 of the total of active judges. And 1 5 of the appellate workload. Its not transformational yet. But its a great start. Theres a lot of room for more appointments if President Trump is reelected. Host hear from rebecca, republican line, michigan. Hello. Caller good morning. I have a question for you. And i have a couple of comments. Do you feel that the American People are ideaologists . I heard the news that the American People, if you do not have a College Education and goal to be a lawyer, doctor that we, the middle class, would be consumed as ideaologists. Up s a democrat for years until all wait through obama. I voted for trump. Because back in the day when i grew up i thought democrats were for the poor and the middle class. Thats what i was taught in michigan. My family from down south was republican. And they said you are too young to understand the politics. Host thats rebecca in michigan. Are the American People ideaologists is her question . Guest im no political expert to be sure. I would like to think the American People have a deep commitment to american principles, how those principles play out is contested. I would hope that we always look back to those principles and principles of liberty and equality, and argue in a civil way how they ought to play out. I think there are lots of folks who have a sense they have been left behind and abandoned. I think that that is a problem that many folks have not been eager to address. Host we mention the president will note the judicial appointments at an event in the white house today. Cspan will cover that, 3 00 p. M. Eastern. Writing about the numbers so far, thomas of the Heritage Foundation and nashville review wrote this yesterday. Today, the senate takes up the next group of judicial nominations, including two each to the u. S. Court of appeals and u. S. District court. Heres the tale of the confirmation tape when they are confirmed. With these confirmations trumps judicial appointment total will be 161, or 18. 7 of the life tenured federal judiciary. The previous five president s appointed an average of 16. 7 at this point. Trumps percentage is higher than obama, bush 41, and reagan. And below bush 43 and clinton. We are with ed whelan talking about the federal judiciary and success rate of the Trump Administration in appointing confirming nominees. We go to patrick, woodbridge, virginia. Democrats line. Caller good morning. Its my understandsing that the American Bar Association has basically given f grades or unqualified reviews to several of trumps judicial nominees. Yet they still get passed. Lso im also i also think that usually a senator from a state or a judge is nominated from usually has to give their support to that judicial nominee. Theres been several that have not had that. After the 2020 election, lets say the democrats take back the senate and the white house, can they begin impeaching some of ese unqualified conservative activist judges . Thats my question. Guest well, the caller is right there have been a very small number of nominees who have received the not qualified rating. The a. B. A. Itself has emphasized how high its ratings have been for some of the nominees. There are a couple instances in which the ratings seemed to have been idea locally biased. That said the overall picture is very high ratings from an organization that is not known to be favorable to conservatives. On the question that the caller raised about home state senators power over nominations this is the socalled blue slip policy. What this means is that home state senators have been given a special say over nominees to district judgeships, u. S. Attorneys offices, and for significant period of time to appellate judges whose chambers happen to be in their states. I think the blue slip policy is best defended on the ground that no senator wants to see his political opponent presiding over his corruption trial. I think therefore has greatest force with respect to district judges, as well as u. S. Attorneys who would be bringing these prosecutions. The fact of the matter is appellate judge has no particular connection to a state other than the minor fact of the chambers being there. As happened in late 2017 then senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley made clear he would no longer allow the socalled negative blue slip on judicial nominations for appellate seats to be used as an idea local veto. He would continue to allow it to ensure consultation. This is a demotion of what the blue slip had been in recent years but restoration of what it had been earlier with respect to appellate judges. The blue slip remains in place for district judges. Thats why youll see in blue states, states with two democratic senators, its been difficult for the white house to strike deals that some of these senators will go along with. Other states, including blu states, there have been deals struck. The home state senators retain special force and influence with respect to district judges they dont have with appellate judges. Host loss leading the who is leading the effort in the white house and what organizations in identifying potential judicial nominees . Guest in the white house, white House Counsel, don mcgann, for the first couple years, now pat and his team, have led the way on making picks. I think they received information from on all sorts of folks. Host william next in manassas, virginia. Independent line. Sorry, william. Youre not there. Try that, william, manassas, virginia, go ahead. Caller im here. Good morning. My question to your guest is when he is saying about the iginal, kind of a little confusing here. The law has been in the book for the people who wrote the constitution mainly there were a few white men, no women, no africanamerican, no hispanic, no american england where the the who drafted constitution. How is that ever changing society now would be governed or being ruled by a law that has or only siding white men drafted by white men . Im just taking my question off line. Thank you. Guest well, the callers point i think is an argument against the constitution. Not originalism. Hes saying how can we accord legitimacy to this document that was adopted by a bunch of white men. Again if he wants to go to work against the constitution on that basis, thats his prerogative. I think a lot of folks have seen the wisdom and genius in the constitution and are grateful for what its provided this country. What originalism says, let me give you one example so people understand what this means. The provisions of the constitution are to be understood in accordance with what they meant at the time they were adopted, including the amendments. Take the provision that says in order to be eligible to be president you must be a natural born citizen. What does that mean . The present controversy over that. Virtually everyone understand we have to understand what it meant at the time it was adopted. We dont ask ourselves what does natural born seem to mean today . Natural childbirth . People would dismiss as ludicrous that inquiry. Thats the same insight that originalists say ought to apply to all provisions of the constitution. As well as to provisions of statutes. Host st. Paul, minnesota. This is lawrence on the independent line. Caller good morning. Quick question. Cspan held a presented a Supreme Court Justice Beyer about a year and a half ago, he had some statistics on the Supreme Court rulings. I know im going to be slightly off. It was like 60 of the rulings are 90. 30 were 54, but never the same 54. And the rest was somewhere else. When i hear the media talk about a divided court, or when i constantly hear the media talk about conservative justice, liberal justice, and i look at those statistics, i would like your take on why the media doesnt look at the breadth of the Supreme Court rulings when it tries to frame how the Supreme Court rules. Thank you for your time. Guest i dont want todirnl not ordinarily in a position of defending the media, i think the fact of the matter is on high ofile cases of ideological ideas, you are likely to see a divide. I think its fair to point those out. There are a lot of cases the Supreme Court takes that involve difficult, nittygritty issues here ones ideological preferences dont come into play at all. And those with account for many of the unanimous decisions. Whatever their ideological preference is people will recognize what the law is. I do think there is something to the callers point that there is more unanimity among the justices. But there is a deep divide on cases that have ideological bounds. Host your take on an article in the Washington Post today that looks at senator excuse me, chief Justice John Roberts impeachment trial to be a test for the chief justice already assailed by trump. History provides only two examples of a chief justice presiding over impeachment. Sol man chase over Andrew Johnson in 1868. William rend quiss was in charge of president clintons impeachment proceedings in 1999. Neither president was convicted. Which requires a 2 3 vote in the senate. The only guidance the constitution gives is, when the president of the United States is tried, the chief justice shall preside. That is to avoid potential conflict of interest because the Vice President , usually presides over the senate, would theoretically benefit from a president ial ruling from office. According to don richie, long time senate historian. What do you think john roberts would bring to a potential impeachment trial . How is he viewed . Guest well, i think hes viewed as a very fair judge. He was a law clerk for then associate justice rend quiss rehnquist. He would take the same minimalist approach to the role that chief Justice Rehnquist took in the clinton process. I think he would try to keep it very low profile and keep things moving expeditiously. Im guessing its not a task that he looks forward to. Host do you think he would wear the robes with the golden stripes on the sleeves . Guest he hasnt done that on the bench. I dont think he would do that in the senate chamber, either. Host lets go to detroit on our democrats line. Go ahead. Caller good morning. I would like to speak about how tch mcconnell and the g. O. P. Trump party are stacking the courts, they need to tell the people, are stacking the court to keep the 1 in control of power. How do we correct that . Thank you. Have a blessed day. Host well hear from do you have a response . Guest i dont think its a matter of stacking the courts. There are vacancies that arise. They are being being filled reasonably expeditiously. There is open debate. Thats our process. I dont think this is a matter of serving the 1 . I think this is a matter of finding judges who will enforce apply the law consistent with principles of texualism and originalism. Host to mark, maryland. Republican line. Caller good morning. Mr. Whelan, im curious about the data on the diversity of the appointments. I believe the host indicated at trump has confirmed 161 judges. My recollection is that president bush appointed about 20 africanamericans and hispanics. I believe that President Trump has only appointed two or three. Im curious what your response is to that. Do you think that thats really representative of what trump should be doing in terms of diverse filing the bench. Guest well, the question of the role of diversity in judicial appointments is interesting and a complicated one. I think the caller is right that below numbers are president bushs. At the same time it seems when President Trump does nominate a minority or otherwise diverse candidate, there is a special vitriol that the left has for that nomination. I think there is a game going on here when hes criticized on diversity grounds. That is the very folks criticizing him tend to attack the diverse candidates. Host we talked about the change in the fable in 2017. The change in the blue slip rules. That you talked about in the senate Judiciary Committee. Brian was a guest, from demand justice, was on our program a couple weeks ago talking about the process change in the u. S. Senate. Want to play his brief comments and hear what you had to say. Custom called the blue slip where both home state senators were to return their blue slip to indicate positive support for the nominee and only then would the Committee Chairman move forward with the nomination. In keeping with their bad faith approach to governing, the Senate Republicans would make a habit of not returning their blue slips for people that barack obama nominated for people that happened to be from red states. Patrick leahy was the chairman of the Judiciary Committee had the power to look the other way and proceed with Barack Obamas nominees or he could kowtow to the republicans that were vetoing Barack Obamas nominees. He chose to kowtow to the likes of ted cruz and john cornyn. For many years, all the years that Patrick Leahy was head of the Judiciary Committee, none of Barack Obamas from red states would ever be considered this. Might have been a good policy if the republicans honored it and reciprocated when they retook the majority and democrats were then in the position of advising on President Trumps nominees. But lo and behold what has happened . The republicans have decided they dont care about the Senate Courtesy anymore. They are not honoring blue slips. Host brought up a perspective on the blue strip issue. Guest im not going to get into an argument between brian and senator leahy. There are fundamental errors there. The blue slip remains in full force with respect to district judges. That point seemed to have been left out. With respect to appellate judges its true there has been a demotion of the force of the blue slip and restoration what existed before senator leahy. Again, if brian wants to criticize senator leahy, im not going to get in that fight. Host which court of appeals, Appeals Court in the federal system, has the has President Trump been able to appoint the moats just most judges to . Guest the answer is the ninth circuit where hes already appointed six or seven. Another one likely to be confirmed today. Two more in the pipeline. The ninth circuit has been notoriously the most liberal court in the country. Thats largely because when jimmy carter was president basically doubled in size and he packed that court with judges who sat on that court for a long, long time. When President Trump took office, there was an imbalance of 19 democratic appointees to six republican appointees. That margin will soon be 16 democrats to 13 republicans. Much tighter. But there are other courts where President Trump has actually flipped the court from a majority of democratic appointees to republican appointees. More precisely thats happened already in the Third Circuit and poised to happen in the 11th circuit which covers the southeast and second circuit. Host all of those Appeals Courts dont have the same number of judges appointed to them. Guest huge difference. The First Circuit has six active judgeships. That covers massachusetts, maine, and new hampshire. And the ninth circuit has 29 active judgeships, as well as a lot of senior judges sitting there. The courts differ dramatically in size. Host sometimes a case can come to an Appeals Court and it can be ruled on by the whole court and then sometimes just by a threejudge panel . Guest almost uniform practice is for the court to delegate its Decisionmaking Authority to threejudge panels in the first instance. After the panel has ruled, there will be a process where the losing party can ask for the court to reconsider enplanning. Atdefrpblt nblanc. The ninth circuit because of its size has a unique limited Panel Procedure where 11 judges rather than the full 29 would sit on that rehearing. Host if the appellate isnt satisfied with that, then they take take it to the Supreme Court after that . Guest the appellate can bypass and go directly to the Supreme Court. Host hear from connie, new jersey. Democrats line. Aller good morning. Im saying this not as a democrat or republican. As just an american person. I came to this country 1957. I thought in civics the courts have to interpret the law. Now your believes, now your religious believes is the law. Host connie, you are breaking up. Sorry about that. Well let you go. Mckinleyville, california. This is dave on the independent line. Caller morning. The only reason that trump has been around to get so many federal judges confirmed is because the democrats under the leadership of neverauskas senator harry reed harry reid invoked the socalled Nuclear Option and changed the rules in the senate regarding the confirmation of federal judges. Made it easier for president s to get their judges confirmed. They obviously didnt understand what the consequences, the ultimate consequences would be of what they were doing. I think they are making the same mistake again with this impeachment charade. I dont think they understand the Collateral Damage they are doing to our democratic system. The only thing that holds our society together it, that stains our democracy, is a willingness to accept and respect the esults of our elections. It seems that the democrats feel like they are entitled to overturn the results of the last president ial election regardless of how the people voted. And its unfortunate because i think that once again what they are doing is going to have adverse consequences not only for them but for the entire country. Host ed whelan. Guest confine myself to daves point of the abolition of the filibuster. I think hes right. I think this was a key factor paving the way for these confirmations. As well at the Supreme Court level. There is no way that the Supreme Court filibuster would have been abolished in 2017. Had the groundwork not been laid by the filibuster for lower Court Nominees being abolished by harry reid back in 2013. Its pretty easy in factual history and ask yourself how many of these nominees would have been confirmed if the democrats still had the filibuster, how many of these nominees would even have made themselves available as nominees if they were looking at the prospect of being filibustered . Host any idea on what the typical timeline is for a nominee, typical judicial nominee in the Trump Administration versus the Obama Administration . Guest well, theres been a real difference between the appellate judges and district judges. In part because Senate Democrats have continued to try to obstruct the confirmation votes on the floor. Host on district judges. Guest on judges generally, which has led senator mcconnell sensibly to prioritize appellate nominees. Some district judges have been sitting for quite a while. I would say from nomination of an appellate judge to to five on a three month range is fairly reasonable. I think its been longer than that for district judges. You could probably find some instances where its been shorter. Host whats it like typically for a person who has been nominated . Do they have to stop their Current Employment . They are sitting in limbo situation or in many cases many of them already, particularly on the appeals level, they already are judges at some level. Guest right. They can continue with their work. Some cases if you are in private practice might be tough to bring on new clients for a case argued in six months if you arent going to be around. They can continue doing what they are doing, understanding there may be a spotlight on what they are doing. The process begins well before the formal nomination. You could easily add six or eight months or more to, if you look host background check and all that. Guest right. Host heres eric, arizona, democrats line. Caller good morning. My question is, how in the Second Amendment where it refers to the militia, is that different than the militia referred to in article 1, section 8 . Without referring to heller or precedent, in your own words i would like you to explain how those two militia are different. Guest im not a Second Amendment expert so ill have to leave that to others to address, sorry. Host on twitter, from mark, he tweets this. He says that elections have consequences. The president has every right to nominate judges to the Supreme Court and the Appeals Courts. Obama stacked the courts with a bunch of liberal judges. The rule against everything that President Trump does. Is there evidence of that . That the judges appointed by the Obama Administration have ruled against the Trump Administration . Guest i think when you look to a lot, especially the District Court injunctions, a lot has been by president obamas appointee. I dont have the numbers here, but i think youll see in ideologically charged cases there is that big difference between president obamas appointees and president bushs or President Trumps. Host eddie in massachusetts on the republicans line. Caller good morning. I understand the ruling that the same president cant be taken to a civil court. I can understand it now that what would happen the opposition would find all sorts of infractions against the sitting president. Jay walking or something of that nature. But now i can see in the federal basis the same thing. That Mueller Report spent two years. I got the democrats elected in the 18 election. I can see the farce. Something should be done to eliminate these false accusations. Thank you. Host ok. Final thoughts. Guest let me just again speak generally about the judicial confirmations. I think we have seen outstanding candidates selected and confirmed, appointed. These are judges that i think the American People can be very proud of and happy to have who will be faithful to the law and will be blessed to have them for hope decades to come. Host from the ethics and Public Policy Center President ed cheellan joining us. Thanks for being here. Coming up on washington jourge, like to find out your top policy issues. Well look at the some of the results from the 2019 election in several states. Hear what you are thinking about impeachment, the whistleblower, we talked about earlier. Democrats, 2027488000. Republicans, 2027488001. And for independents, 2027488002. Well be right back. Sunday night on book tv at 9 00 eastern. On afterwards, former speaker of the house, newt gingrich, with his latest book, trump versus china. I dont think the chinese have any great planning, certainly in the next 20 to 25 years, to try to take us on militarily in the traditional sense. I do think they are trying to build the kind of cyber capabilities, i think this is part where huawei is an Extraordinary National asset for them. I think that they are trying to build a capability in space, both of which have global implications. New York University jourmism professor Pamela Newkirk talks about her new book, diversity ink. What im not optimistic about is white americas ability to of past the fiction africanamericans, of latin people, the centuries old demeaning images of people and how that has as much to do with the lack of diversity. Watch book tv every weekend on cspan2. Washington journal continues. Host well open up our phone lines here at washington journal to hear your top Public Policy issues. Democrats, 2027488000. Republicans, 2027488001. Independents, 2027488002. Some tweets from the star tribune in minneapolis talking about the National Election results in several states. In National Election results democrats took full control of the Virginia Assembly for the first time in more than two decades. The race for governor in kentucky was too close to call despite a lastminute boost from petroleump. The sun herald in mississippi, breaking republican tate reeves wins the governor race. Joint statement from the department deef fence, paul tweeting this. Joint statement saying that no evidence of a compromise or disruption in todays election at this time says russia, china, iran seek to interfere in the voting process or influence voter perceptions. And from the New York Times, looking at that virginia win for democrats, Virginia Republicans give up state senate amid leftward shift. Democrats completed virginias historic partisan shift from red to blue on tuesday. Winning majorities in both chambers of the legislature and consolidating power across State Government for the first time in a generation. In an election where passion abouts President Trump drove voters on both sides, a revolt against the president in virginias rapidly growing suburbs helped remake the states political map. Now under Governor Ralph Northam who survived scandal earlier this year, democrats are positioned to advance a sweeping liberal priorities in the state. Your thoughts and calls. We go to joe in east palestine, ohio. Independent line. Caller hi. How you doing . Host go ahead coifment i was just wondering. If this impeachment deal gets all the way to the senate, if there is one, two, three, or four senators who are candidates for presidency, is there an issue to have them voting yes or no on what could apparently be their opponent . Host the issue brought up earlier on a guest here on the program, thanks for that comment. Wayne in new york. Republican line. Caller yes. How you doing today. Host fine. Caller the impeachment thing is really crazy. I dont understand people that get elected and then the Mueller Report and everything that went on is crazy. I never heard anything like it. How you can change an election when the people its like saying new york, california, illinois these places like that have the total voice of the people. I think thats totally wrong. Host opinion from the Washington Times. An opinion writer, founder of the American Spectator writing, impeaching americas future. Headline on his opinion piece. It reads, in part, the u. S. Constitution requires that the president commit treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors to be impeached. An impeachable act has to be the equivalent to treason or bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors of the the duly elected president to talk to a foreign leader in the course after wide ranging conversation about foreign aid in july and do nothing to stop that foreign aid shipment in september is not a high crime. It might be a sign of lapse judgment, especially when the president knows other white house staffers have questionable loyalty are listening on the telephone call, but it is not a crime. Yet such hear to foreminor lapses are going to hamstring our president s for years to come. In california, this is ann on our democrats line. Caller hi. I feel that the most important issue is our climate. That we need to address that. Take it seriously and take ures seriously to reduce just to try to get back what we are losing. Thats my wiggest biggest issue. As far as the impeachment issue, hes done things that are just incredibly unethical, trump has. I think he should be held accountable for that. Thats it. Host on climate, this story in the Washington Post. More than 11,000 scientists around the globe declare a Climate Emergency. Ineport by 11,258 scientists 153 countries from a broad range of disciplines warns that the planet clearly and unequivocally faces a Climate Emergency. And provides six broad policy goals that must be met to address it. The analysis is a stark departure from a recent scientific assessment of Global Warming such as those of the u. N. Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change. In that it does not couch its conclusions in the language of uncertainties and does it does proscribe policies. The study called the world scientist warning of a Climate Emergency marks the first time a large group of scientists has formally come out in favor of labeling Climate Change and emergency which the study votes is caused by many human trends that are, together, increasing Greenhouse Gas emissions. In massachusetts, sam on the independent line. Caller hello. Host make sure you mute your television. Go ahead with your comment or your question. Caller im talking about impeachment. I was supposed to talk to the host sam, do us all a favor and make sure that you turn down your television, ok. Caller i turned down my television. Host yes. And listen to the phone. Sorry about that, sam. The deal is when you call in just listen to the phone. That way you wont feedback. California, this is joe on the republican line. Caller yes. Colorado. Host sorry. My mistake. Caller number one issue is immigration. The founders wanted a two party ystem. Unstoppable immigration has created a one party system in several states. We dont want a one Party Solution like other countries have done. It leads to totalitarianism. Weve got to stop this unmitigated immigration. Theres got to be assimilation. We are americans. We are not fill in the blank americans. We are americans. Makingot to move towards a United States. It has to slow down for a while. There was a large period of our history where we had to stop and ation for many years assimlate. And that has to be done again. Host joe. Appreciate that. We go to stanford, in fort wayne, indiana. On the republican line. Go ahead. Caller yes. My topic is impeachment of this wonderful president of ours. We have gone through many president s. Hes number 45. I cant believe the democrats want to impeach somebody for doing their job. Look at the economics of the whole situation. Hes just being victimized. This is ridiculous. I watch cspan all the time. You guys, you try to cover erything fairly, but really, it comes out that democrats seem to get more time online than we republicans or independents. Host we welcome your views. Big win for democrats in virginia. We are joined on the phone by Patrick Wilson, politics reporter for the Richmond Times dispatch. The democrats seizing control first time in a generation, its been reported. What was behind the democrats victory there in virginia . Guest it was a big break for the democrats of the the main thing behind it was President Trump. Hes been very good for Democratic Electoral chances in virginia. There also was some redistricting done in the house of delegates that changed some of the republican districts to more democratic. And that also factored into democrats making gains in the house. But since trump has been elected, democrats in virginia in 2017 flip 15 seats in the statehouse of delegates. This was taking it from a 6634 republican advantage to just 5149. And then last year they flipped three congressional seats, so the democrats in virginia now control the u. S. House delegation for the state, 74. And this is all motivated by antitrump sentiment. And then last night the democrats took control both the statehouse and senate and they already control the Governors Mansion, so for the first time in 26 years they have got both chambers of the legislature, and Governors Mansion and they can actually pass an agenda of their own. Host what do you think that agenda of Governor Northams now Democratic Legislature in virginia will include . Guest its definitely going to include some gun measures. That was a big issue this year in virginia with the mass shooting at the Virginia Beach municipal center. Democrats have pushed things like expanded background checks. And things that republicans had been resistant through passing through the legislature. Earlier this year the governor called a special session on gun control issues, and the republicans control of the General Assembly rather than take up any legislation wanted to have it studied by a state Crime Commission this year. They felt like the governor was setting them up for electoral failure with the special session and they wanted to take a deep breath and have these measures studied. The democrats position was, we need to take some type of action now in response to this mass shooting. In a number of districts in the tidewater area, Virginia Beach, and also the suburbs of richmond, Northern Virginia, various parts of the state, democrats were campaigning really aggressively on gun safety issues. The group, every town for gun safety, pumped a lot of money into virginia campaigns this year. And that largely benefited the democrats. In Virginia Beach there were two Key Senate Seats that the republicans held on to, and were able to fend off the democratic challenge there, but the democrats end up with 2119 seat majority in the state senate. So guns will be an issue theyll definitely address next year. They also, the legislature will pass the equal rights amendment. If that still is allowed to become federal law, added to the u. S. Constitution, virginia would be the final state needed to ratify the e. R. A. Host you talked about the role of President Trump backlash in this vote, electing democrats in virginia. Was there any evidence of negative effect of the scandals, the racial scandals that surrounded Governor Northam and Lieutenant Governor late last year and early this year . Guest thats a really good question. Ts fascinating its fascinating because when those scandals were breaking, as many, im sure cspan listeners recall, it was thought that Governor Ralph Northam was on the verge of resigning at any moment. And he stayed in office. And slowly has tried to recover. Republicans did not get a lot of advantage out of that issue. Its not even clear why, exactly. Theres probably a lot of analysis that can be done there. Voters find Governor Northam fairly popular. In certain democratic districts where democrats is called for the governor to resign, there were certain voters this year that were mad they called for Governor Northam to resign. They felt like this old yearbook photo that he apologized for was not something the governor should have to resign over. So interestingly enough the republicans were not able to really use that issue or the Sexual Assault allegations against Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax the way they would have liked. There were a couple of races where republicans did use the Lieutenant Governor in their campaign to attack the democratic candidate, and i think most or all those races the republican lost. Lost. Was so it was not an Effective Campaign tactic. As far as the scandal involving Governor Northam, some of his comments that he made earlier this year on third trimester abortions were a fooktor factor in motivating republican voters, but the racist yearbook photo scandal that the governor had has essentially not become a very big issue at least in tuesdays election. And now with the chance to sign bills into law, a lot of democrats want, northam has even more of a chance next year to rehabilitate his career, his image, and his political status. Host one more thing based on the results in the Virginia Election and your reporting, Patrick Wilson, what do you think the lessons are for the democrats and republicans when it comes to the 2020 president ial race . Guest well, donald trump lost virginia, this was the only Southern State that he lost. The way things are looking right now, trump is very popular in the countryside in virginia. In rural areas. In large areas of southwest virginia. And different parts of the state. But the majority of people do not like President Trump in virginia, especially in the urban areas and in the suburbs in Northern Virginia, the richmond suburbs, and increasingly in the Hampton Roads area. It looks like a difficult state again for republicans. In 2020 and the president ial race. Host Patrick Wilson report interesting virginia on the big win by democrats in the legislative election there. Hes at richmond. Com to read his reporting on twitter at patrickwilson. Thanks for the update. House reporter caught up with Kellyanne Conway at the white house this morning. She had comments to make about the flip in the virginia legislature. Heres what she said. Dy see that some of the four really close race there is did go the way of republicans. I think virginia in the last not think, in the last three president ial elections voted for democrats. Its been trending blue for a while now. And i dont think they have had a statewide elected republican there since about 120 years. Host 2019 the elections impeachment inquiry, whistleblower, your top Public Policy issues. Dale in wisconsin. On the republican line. Caller yes. Guess the question i have is with Vice President biden running for office now, how can he run for any office where he has already admitted on videotape of committing a quid pro quo . It doesnt make sense to me at all. How he can even run for any political office. Thank you. Host to jobs fair in new york. Jonathan. Caller hi. Good morning. I have two quick points. One has to do with the issue of the transgressions of the president. Bribery is taking something of personal value or something for something of personal value while you are performing your public office. It seems to me incontrovertable that the president has done it both in his redacted statement that he called a transcript, and by the testimony we have heard it seems to me there is no debate over that issue it seems to me clear. The other thing id like to say quickly is that this program at im on now is a very life affirming program. Because we have so many people from so many walks of life in a Political Climate where comity and acceptance of people with other views is so in doubt. Its really affirming to listen to this program. Host glad you enjoy it. Thanks for calling in, jonathan. On the 2019 results, statement from the trumppens campaign that reads in part, President Trumps rally helped five of six kentucky republicans win clear statewide victories, including attorney general elect Daniel Cameron who will be the first black attorney general in kentucky history. The first republican to hold office, that office since 1948. The president just about dragged governor matt bevin across the finish line, helping him run a stronger than expected, what turned into a close race at the end. A final outcome remains to be seen. The governor has not conceded that race in kentucky. Alicia next, columbia, maryland. Independent line. Aller good morning. Good morning, america. I feel and think that it we should seriously revisit the homelessness. You see these popup tents on sidewalks. Even along the highway. It is shameful how we negligent neglect our brothers and sisters. And california delegates i think you need to get on the ball and do something about your people. It is shameful. We shouldnt have to have those people just live in squalor a like that. Where do they do their business . Their private business . It is really shameful. We really need to start doing something about that. Thank you very much. Host sandy springs, south carolina. Talk with susan on the republican line. Caller hi. Host you are on the air. Caller thank you. How are you, sir . Host fine, thanks. Trump. I voted for at first issue about it. The more i listen the more i said you need a leader, somebody strong, and all the corruption hats been going on. And if the democrats would just put a hand together with trump and look to work with this resident, how much we could do also drain these spies people tely longtime 60 years, 40 years get some term limits. I think that there wouldnt be as much hatred and division as well as the media constantly calling him a racist. And hes doing everything to boost up every cycle. This i think is the first cycle to get the businesses back. Then i think i think and the second he would put a second x on 2 tax on to the top it. Or 1. 5 basically the multibillionaires. Host susan in south carolina. News from chinas front page of the Financial Times this morning. President xi of china greets the chief executive executive in hong dong kong yesterday. Attending the First Official talks since regular protests began in hong kong in june. The latest violence at the weekend, rioters firebomb the entrance to the territorys headquarters of chinas official news agency. Ending violence and chaos and restoring order remains the most important task for hong kong. The Financial Times reported last month that mr. Xis administration was drawing up plans to replace ms. Lam by as early as march. Ricks in locksly, alabama. On our democrats line. Aller good morning. I would just like to make a comment. The republicans started out saying there was no quid pro quo in the ukraine. And now they are kind of backing off and saying, ok. So its not an Impeachable Offense. There could be a quid pro quo. So they keep moving the goal post. I have been a republican all my life. Didnt vote for this president. I knew it was going to be bad. But never envisioned it being this bad. But until this country can sit down and have conversations and debate over the issues, which they will not in my state, we are never going to mend this country and get where we need to be as a country. Thats just my comment. Thank you very much. Host republican line next, chris in illinois. Caller hello. Host go ahead. You are on the air. Caller the whole impeachment thing to me is a joke because President Trump has done nothing that the president hasnt done with foreign leaders. Hes not a politician. Hes a businessman. He doesnt have the phrase kiss their end out of the democrats they want him to do. And they call him a racist, if they look at the definition of racism, this has nothing to do with what you say. Its when you believe your race is superior to other races. Ey are confusing racism with you know what im talking about, i think. Host bigotry . Caller not bigotry. Starts with a d. Host appreciate your comments. Couple more minutes here. Just a couple stories here on the biden family. This one about hunter biden. This is the wall street journal in their headline. Firm hired by ukraines trying to use hunter biden as leverage, documents show. A Consulting Firm hired by the group mentioned that former u. S. Vice president joe bidens son served on the ukrainian gas companys board so the firm could leverage a meeting with the state department. Accordling to documents and a former according to documents and former u. S. Official. Also a story this morning thats being reported in political could he, a little help from the Vice President. How joe biden, his younger brother frank, a lobbyist, and an oil heiress got congress to ban the slaughter of horses for meat. They write that in 2013 an oriole heiress hired a Florida State senator to lobby the federal government on behalf of a pet cause. Banning the slaughter of horses for meat. Lawmaker was the close associate of frank biden, the younger brother of then Vice President joe biden. At the time the younger biden was looking for state funding for his Charter School business. And he sat on a key appropriation subcommittee in the florida legislature. Politico writes the two men met frequently. It was only natural when the horse slaughter measure stalled in congress, abruso sought frank bidens help. As those involved recounted months later, the Vice President quickly went to bat. You can read all that at politico. Com. Roberts in sterling, virginia. Roberts in sterling, virginia, independent line. Caller good morning. Just like to go out with a little bit of history first. Ill be quick about it. My father did not really like newt gingrich. He didnt think he was a good politician at all. Or good House Speaker. Later on came mr. Paul ryan, the gentleman who actively said he didnt want to be House Speaker. He took the job anyway. And we all see how that turned out. Now we have House Speaker pelosi. She has a lot of experience. Shes very professional. In what she does. The problem is shes making a critical error when it comes to this trade deal with mexico and canada. Its something that should have been passed. At least brought to the house floor over six months ago. And shes personally stalling on this. Refusing to bring it to a vote. Shes personally insulting canada, mexico, the senate, the president , of course. But also the hardworking families waiting for this bill to at least come to the floor. She can vote it down. She could approve it. But she wont even bring it to the floor. And the sad part is, shes counting on no comment from overseas because she knows the president will have to step up and defend her if they come after her. Im just curious what in the world we can do when the House Speaker personally insults our allies like this and there is almost nothing we can do about it. We cant vote her out of office. We cant reprimand her or him, whoever it is at the time. What do we do about this . Host also in virginia on our democrats line, this time. Fairfax. Caller good morning. I just wanted to dispute an earlier caller on immigration. I think we should be allowing more immigrants in, more global refugees. A lot of these people are climate refugees. We have the space, the physical space to have the resources, now we just need to have the heart. We are showing the world we are not the good guys and that we are not good people. And we need to change that. Thank you. Host quick story here from the New York Times about the emmitt till memorial. White supremacists try to film the till memorial. This is a newly established memorial after the other one has been defaced and damaged several times. Security camera footage eight members of the league of the south, a White Supremacist Group in alabama gathered around the memorial. The mississippi flag and southern nationals flag waving in the wind. We are here at the monument that represents the Civil Rights Movement for blacks announced michael hill, the leader of the group, what we want to know is where are all all of the White Security alarm sounds, mr. Hill antirest of the group scatter, flee the scene. It was later revealed he and his associates all white were there to film a propaganda video to promote the racist views. See if we can get a call from uniontown, pennsylvania, before the Senate Hearing gets under way. Republican line. Go ahead. Thank you for taking my call. I wanted to say first of all that i think the establishment to clarify that, i believe the establishment has been. Ndermined for years b President Trump and his allies try to reestablish an establishment. At the liberals went out and defeat everything hes accomplished we will go down a very bad road. Make your taking my call. Host host we look forward to hearing from all of you at 7 00 a. M. Eastern on washington journal on cspan and cspan radio. We will take you live to capitol hill. The senate Judiciary Committee about to meet to consider reauthorizing the freedom act which bans the bulk collection of private records. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2019] i live picture from capitol hill where the senate Judiciary Committee is gather to hold a hearing on reauthorizing the usa freedom act, which bands the bulk collection of private records. We will hear from Justice Department and National Security officials. Senator Lindsey Graham is the chair of the committee. He has not yet arrived. We expect this to get underway as soon as he gets here. Live coverage on cspan
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.