Transcripts For CSPAN Washington Journal 01102020 20240713

And independents, 2027488002. If you want to text us, do so at 2027488003. You can tweet cspanwj and our Facebook Page, facebook. Com cspan. The headline from the Washington Times this morning regarding the statement from Speaker Pelosi yesterday, here is how it reads, pelosi defies bipartisan calls to send articles of impeachment adding democrats adjust she will indefinitely trial. She insisted the senate make public the rules for the trial. The trial cannot start until the House Speaker sends articles to the upper chamber. The press conference you can find here is what she had to say about the articles of impeachment. [video clip] asking the same question and i am giving the same answer as i said from the start. We need to see that the arena in which we are sending our managers is that too much to ask . In october we put forth a House Resolution which talked about witherms further seed we expectedon to see that here bank. Youthey might want to probably heard another some suggested they might want to equal admission. The truth, the facts, and the umentation contrary to what the majority leader said, he said this is like the clinton it is not at and i said to my members send to my members 6 of the points in which it is different. At some point, we would hope we would see from them what the terms of engagement would be. We are ready, we are proud of our defense of the constitution of the United States. We are concerned the senators will not be able to live up to oath they must take. Host Washington Times adding that the clinton proceedings allowed for house prosecutors to present their case and a White House Team to decide on whether or not the procedure witnesses. In the procedure was unanimous. Mr. Clinton was investigated by special counsel for more than a year whereas officials from whom se democrats called for democrats decided not to go to court to subpoena them. From the Senate Majority leader, jordanian carney writing yesterday Mitch Mcconnell told republicans during a closeddoor lunch to expect President Trumps impeachment trial to start next week. The republican leader warned lawmakers during the caucus meeting they should not expect to be able to go home next weekend indicating the long delay trial will be underway. Once Speaker Pelosi sends the trial over the senate would until they wrap up what is expected to be a weeklong process. The impeachment and the articles of Speaker Pelosi was spoken about on the senate floor by Mitch Mcconnell. [video clip] article 1, Section Three says the senate shall have the sole. Ower to try all impeachment the house can begin the process and Speaker Pelosis majority has certainly done that, but the senate alone can resolve it. For weeks, the House Majority block the senate from fulfilling our constitutional duty in an impressive display of partisanship, the speaker refused to let her allegations proceed normally to trial unless she gets to hand designed various elements of our senate process. In other words, House Democrats already spent 12 weeks undermining the institution of the presidency with a historically unfair and subjective impeachment and now for a sequel, they have come after the institution of the senate as well. That is where we are. The dwindling number of Senate Colleagues who remain complicit must realize what they are doing. Should future house majorities feel empowered to waste our time with Junior Varsity political hostage situations question mark should future speakers be committed to conjure up this damocles at will and leave it hanging over the Senate Unless we do what they say . Of course not. Host your comments on the withholding of articles of impeachment and reaction from the House Speaker and Mitch Mcconnell. 2027488000 for democrats. 2027488001 for republicans and independents, 2027488002. You can also text that 2027488003. Al is up next in ohio,. Epublican line caller this is my opinion. I did not vote for trump or hillary. I am thinking about President Trump this time around because i that there is a whistleblower. In the first two years with the meller guy, this convinced this should have been done for. I dont know why we are still talking about it. Host what do you think about the actions of House Speaker holding onto the articles . Caller she has been a pain in i have knownsince her. His is just bipartisan host democrats line. Hi. Caller the speaker is right holding the articles of impeachment. Senate leadership has made it clear they have no intentions of calling witnesses or having a fair trial. She will have to send the does,es over and when she what she should do next is subpoena bolton. Have him come in front of chariman nadler and tell us what he knows about the phone calls, the emails, giuliani being a hand grenade and drug deals. The American Public has a right to know what is going on. The money was appropriated by congress. It was held up to dig up dirt on the bidens. Everyone knows it. Senators need to do their job. Host what is the value of holding onto them if she knows the conclusion . Caller the value of holding onto them is allowing everyone to see how complicit the senate is in not doing their job. Host david from georgia, independent line, you are next up. Caller many years ago i used to work as a musician in bars and i walk in withe perfectly fine decisionmaking powers and at the end of the evening, they would make the worst choices in the world. At last call, they would pick up their keys and get in the car and drive off. No chemically fueled decisionmaking powers are no good. Host how does that relate to articles of impeachment . Caller Lindsey Graham will come out at 5 30 p. M. In the afternoon. I have seen too many drinks drunks to know the man is drunk. Host aside from the accusations, what does that mean for articles of impeachment . Using Mitch Mcconnell is the same kind of judgment just brain correct. They are trying to cover it up for him because they dont want their party to look so bad. Host apologies for that. This is linda in mississippi, democrats line. Go ahead. I agree with nancy pelosi holding up the articles of impeachment until she can get some assurance that mitch dismiss thisl not case. Donald trump is not going to be there forever. They know he is out of control. Even when he did that speech, he was on something. His speech was slurred. House did its job and passed the articles, why should it wait to see what the senate does . Caller the Senate Already said they are not going to take the oath seriously. Mcconnell goes over there and sits with trump and his team and tells him we are not going to convict him. How is that serving the people . Sham trial. Host Speaker Pelosi overplayed her hand and is learning the hard way there are three branches of government. She is she has no power in the senate. Steve off of our text service saying House Democrats stood up time and again. The president was impeached on the evidence, that should be enough for a trial. Send the articles over and lets end this mess. If you want to text us, 2027488003. If you want to tweet us, cspanwj. What do you think about the actions of Speaker Pelosi regarding articles of impeachment . Caller most important like, thank you for taking the call. Longtime listener, first time caller. The main reason the democratically controlled house is maintaining control is to keep it relevant in the news cycle. I think the house had the opportunity to do a thorough investigation and draft the articles of impeachment. It was voted on and agreed on to be impeached. It is time to hand it over to the senate and let them do the Due Diligence process. Host from massachusetts, barbara is next up. Caller honestly, nancy pelosi is my hero. She is measured, consistent, and holding to the constitution and that the trial should appear to be fair. House that why the has brought articles of impeachment, why they would go along with the senate. We are in such partisan times. Mitch mcconnell wants conservative judges, so he can do whatever he can to keep trump in power. It is the problem with washington and we need to work on getting corruption out of the government and we need an amendment for that purpose so we can control the spending that goes on during election time and firm votinga good, system so people know that their vote does count and there are no going on. S host if the senate is given the job of trying that, what is wrong with what is currently going on since the house has done its job . Caller Mitch Mcconnell has said we are working with the president on this and that is not how the trial in the senate should work. People that wrote the constitution, our founders did not make sure everyone will try rigging unless there is something that keeps us from rigging. The constitution does not say the senate will work with the president to make sure the trial is not fair. It does not say anything like that. Host it does not spell out a lot of details on either side as far as the nuances of what they do. Caller the people can see it is not fair. They want it to be fair. I would like to say the president apparently not stay in office. Host this is bob from illinois saying democrats are making a mockery of impeachment. You can let us know, 2027488000 for democrats. Republicans, 2027488001. Independents, 2027488002. One of the people speaking on the senate floor yesterday was the Senate Minority leader, Chuck Schumer. [video clip] i want to associate myself with the statement made yesterday from one of our distinguished colleagues about House Democrats treating impeachment like a political toy. If it is serious and urgent, send them over, if it isnt, dont. That was the senior senator from california, the Ranking Member of the judiciary committee. He was not alone it is time to get on with it. That is the junior senator from delaware. At some point, it is appropriate to send them and. Ss the baton to senators the senior senator from connecticut. I think the time has passed. Send the articles. The junior senator from connecticut. This is a challenging time to create a bipartisan agreement in the senate on any subject. The speaker of the house managed to do the impossible. Host that is the Senate Majority leader Mitch Mcconnell. We will hear from Chuck Schumer soon. Republican line, edward and cedar rapids, iowa. Good morning. Caller good morning, pedro. Happy new year to you. Caller host thank you. Geter whether the articles sent from the house or not, this impeachment trial should go forward. What i think senator mcconnell should do is go over to the house of representatives. Rules requiredhe for the impeachment inquiry, take them to the senate and apply the same rules for the impeachment trial. The same rules used in the house should be used in the impeachment trial. Host you mean the rules in the clinton impeachment . The trump, in impeachment, the impeachment inquiry against trump, the same rules should be used in the senate for the impeachment trial. That way democrats will be happy. Host by would that make them happy . Caller the same rules used to impeach trump would be used to hold the trial. Host go ahead, finish your thought. Caller they were happy with the rules used in the impeachment inquiry, they should be rules happy with the same set of rules in the impeachment trial. , andover, is tom massachusetts, independent line. Theer if you consider that house of representatives is basically a grand jury and that an senate is to try indictment, i dont understand how they cannot have witnesses. It does not make any sense. Host the clinton impeachment saying the house will make it presentation and then the consideration of witnesses to take place, is that a model to follow, then . Caller i dont think so. I think the rules of engagement should be clear and i think the biggest problem the house has is that it was already stated by Senate Leadership that this would be swept under the rug. Andover giving thoughts this morning and other people giving thoughts as well including minority leader in the senate, Chuck Schumer. [video clip] i know the republican leader must be upset he cannot exert total control over the process, but Speaker Pelosi has done just the right thing and i can understand why leader mcconnell is so frustrated. If the speaker sent the articles of impeachment to the Senate Immediately after they passed, Senate Republicans could have moved to dismiss the articles. There was a lot of talk about that. There would not have been a fair or even cursory trial and they might have tried to dismiss the articles before christmas. Over the past few weeks, not only have they been prevented from doing that, there have been several crucial disclosures of evidence that appear to further eachminate the president , bolstering the argument democrats have made for a trial that features the relevant witnesses and documents. That has been Speaker Pelosis focus from the beginning. That has been my focus from the beginning, getting a fair trial that considers the fact that only the facts. As i have said repeatedly on the senate floor, just the facts, maam. We will continue on with this topic so you can make your calls. Independents, 2027488002. One of the actions that took place on the house yesterday was the vote on the war powers resolution. The New York Post adds it was about along party lines to prove a more binding resolution that would limit President Trump possibility to take military action in iran. It passed by a vote of 224 to 194. Eight democrats voted against the measure. One independent also voting in favor. Those republicans voting for the war powers resolution. Matt gaetz, tom massey of kentucky, and Francis Rooney of florida as well. The wars voting against powers resolution, anthony of , joe cunningham, kendra and, ben mcadams Stephanie Murphy of florida you can find more of that vote including how it broke down when. Ou go to our website n is next in wisconsin. Caller i think nancy pelosi is one of the only adults in the room with the situation and when you look at the clinton impeachment, they had everybodys testimony and testify iname in to their depositions and stuff, this we did not get with white house blocking people from testifying, so we did not get all the information and republicans have decided they are not going to follow through with impeachment. This cannot be any kind of fair trial. They are working with the president. Lets work with the accused. That is like having the prosecution work with the accused to get them off. How fair can that be . Host california from our republican line. Hello. Caller yes, good morning, cspan. To say. Nly one comment days maximum, that is it. Host what is the value in that . Both housesvalue is should be doing what the people sent them there in washington. Host it was Mitch Mcconnell thursday signing onto legislation by senator josh hawley that would deem articles of impeachment transmitted to the senate if the house failed to do so. A senator could then introduce a motion to dismiss articles with prejudice for failure by the house up his and it is to prosecute. You can read more up to the Washington Times. Some reaction from legislators, including steve scullys sc alise. Pelosi still making excuses for not sending to the senate. Democrats know their case will be exposed and they are trying to avoid a national embarrassment. Mark meadows saying we have reached the point where democrats are calling on pelosi to transmit the impeachment articles and minutes later say never mind. They cannot even decide what to do with their own articles, you cannot make that up. Marsha blackburn saying democrats are right to be concerned about the delay sending articles to the senate. It obstructs the duty to hold the trial and proves impeachment is a sham. Democrats also giving thought this morning. Tom saying we need a fair impeachment trial which calls for witnesses and brings forth documents to get the truth. Nothing more than a coverup. That followed up this morning cohen. Twitter by steve so far, she is doing pretty good. Senators need to hear the truth and the facts need impartial jurors and that will be followed up by sheldon whitehouse. I am with the speaker, it is her call and she should make the decision on her terms and schedule. It has drawn attention to the no witness, no documents phony trial. Chicago, illinois, you are next up. Happy new year. I am going to try to make this quick. Treason still on the books . What is the precedent if someone betrays their country . Someone betrays the country, they should be put away. If she does not impeach this man, anarchy comes into my head if he does not get on his toes i was looking at the people wereay as talking about putting handcuffs on him, you have a wild dog running wild and you need to put a leash on him. If iran should attack, then you take the leash off. Host joanne from kentucky will be next, democrats line. Caller hello. Thank you for cspan. The reason i want to call in is i believe nancy pelosi is doing the right thing by holding up these articles. I think she is showing where washington is broken and a big part of that is Mitch Mcconnell. He is really showing his cards. He is not for the people, he is for the power. He is not interested in anything fair and impartial. That is not the way our government is supposed to work. We need to get him out. Host robert in michigan, republican line. Caller when i hear conservatives call in, i dont know what why they call themselves conservatives because they talk just like democrats. So hard, theyp henot see the do the good is doing. Nancy pelosi had the simple ill vote. Symbolic she wants to Tell Congress and do. H mcconnell what to she is not the leader, she should go back and live in a tent on the streets with homeless people. Host this is from the washington post, just one of the issues that took place. In one remarkable turnabout, a senior house democrat, adam smith of washington called on Speaker Pelosi to transmit articles thursday morning only to reverse course within hours. I think it was perfectly advisable for the speaker to try to leverage that to get a better cnn. Mr. Smith said on at this point, it doesnt look like it will happen. Adam smith walked comments back in a tweet saying he misspoke saying i completely support the speaker upon effort. The speakers effort. Joining us in 15 minutes, we John Lawrence. Also from 2005 to 2013 served as the former chief of staff. Pelosi. Ancy that conversation coming up about 15 minutes from now. Dolly from miami, florida, republican line. Caller good morning. I keep saying that hearing people calling and saying it has to be fair. Was it fair in the house . It was not. Republicans were not allowed to ask certain questions. They were not allowed to have witnesses. Why . He will bey know reelected no matter what and that is what democrats want and all the people who hate him, too bad because he will be reelected. Host republicans also had a chance to ask questions in the closeddoor testimony, the opendoor testimony, and they had a witness for themselves toward the latter part of the trial. Did they not get their voice in this process . Caller they did not. I know you, i hear you all the time. You are so biased and most of the people at cspan are. Host it is not a matter of bias, it is an innocent question since you made the claim. How would you respond . Caller i watched it all because i am retired. My husband and i could not believe the railroading they did in the house and out now they know it will go in the senate and it is going nowhere just like they cling just like the clinton impeachment. Clinton did commit crimes, the president has not done anything wrong. They are just hoping they can get him out because they know he can be he will be reelected. E and marilyn, independent line. Caller thanks for taking my call. I dont know if people have as short of a memory span as they tom to, but it is bizarre compare this to the clinton impeachment. Starr was on a fishing expedition for a very minor real estate mall seasons,. Alfeasance usinghey had linda tripp illegal means to spy on her friend for months if not over a year and they ended up trying to get him on sexual impropriety, which the same people who claimed to be so outraged. Host he was a special prosecutor at the time, so that was a whole separate set of things happening on that front. Caller the irony of talking about some sort of partisanship, they have open hatred for the clintons from the second he was elected and they made no they did not even try to hide it. You had people like Newt Gingrich, there is an enormous amount of hypocrisy and i wish all the people who claim to care about the country would be honest about the fact when it is their guy, he can do no wrong and when it is the other guy, he can do no right and that has to change. It is not helping the American People. The fact is there is much more evidence of malfeasance against trump then there was against the clintons. Host jason in Washington State, republican line. Disheartening. I am 45 years old. I would claim myself to be republican. Had bernie not been run out of the election in 2016, i would have voted for bernie. Here we are i dont know how many consecutive months into the bickering back and forth and i think we need to come together and stop splitting hairs over things that dont matter to the everyday citizen of this country. I am worried about my kid getting a good education. Host why is this not an important matter and what did you think of the withholding of them . Caller it is terrible that she is holding them up. If there is enough evidence to convict me and you in a regular court, it would be done with. I will deal with pence for the next year and a half, vote him out. If you cannot impeach him, vote him out. Lets stop throwing aches at gs at each eg other. Host this is someone off our text service. Cluck so pelosi to much about impeachment, she does not run the senate. She is waiting for a focus group to respond. Cindy saying good for her, she is not kowtowing to the gop, she is well within her authority to do what she is doing. Republicans prove the American People daily they have much to hide. Cindy is off of our Facebook Page this morning and you can do the same and post on our Facebook Page. Textingtweet us and our service. Include your name, city, and state and you can clue us. David is next in act in bill, florida. Jacksonville, florida. Caller i find myself i dont find myself agreeing with the right often, but that last caller was on point. All the impeachment process is doing is motivating the trump base. I think democrats will have their hands full. Bernie with impeachment, isnt it funny Nothing Happened until joe biden was in the crosshairs. All of a sudden, all this impeachment hoopla starts. It seems the establishment is playing that same game they play of distraction politics. Host the issue that we are talking about, the articles, should they be released or not . The process continue, but it is going nowhere. Mitch mcconnell is not going to do anything. We know they play partisan politics. Meanwhile, the American People suffer. People are having trouble making rent. People are hurting and we need leadership that addresses these hurts. Impartiality by cspan hosts, what a nonsensical comment. We love the work you do. Host Kevin Mccarthy is House Minority leader, has an oped on the process of impeachment. Immediately after the speaker declared an impeachment increase, i sent a letter outlining what a fair process would require in the house. They were not partisan demands, they were the same procedures. He house followed the presidency and the house were controlled by different parties and this would help ensure the standards of due process were upheld regardless of political affiliation. She dismissed the reasonable concerns and deprived mr. Trump of the opportunity to defend himself. The president had rights only at the democrats discretion. That is in the Washington Times. Darrell from michigan, independent line. Morning. Ood i called last time on december 12 and i foretold it is possible nancy pelosi is a train on a track headed for a crash in the senate. Nether never did i conceive president ial a pocket veto on a bill to impeach. T is totally unconstitutional people dont realize what is happening now is incredible and i believe it will end in the downfall of nancy pelosi. She will have to resign her positions because this is going too far, too long and she has no right to tell the senate how to run their program. Int alabama from greg billingsley. Good morning. Caller good morning. The calling about impeachment article. Is in nancy pelosi contempt of congress. She should be impeached because she is in contempt, holding up. Ongress from doing its work she is holding back and i believe she is holding back because she is hoping democrats will take over the senate and then she can push the articles of impeachment through and they it. Vote on he is prosperous toward our country, he has done a lot for us and i back him 100 on everything he does and it is a flimsy case of impeachment. Host when it comes to matters of iran, the headlines of the Financial Times stemming from news out of yesterday about the downed ukrainian plane the u. S. And ukraine fearing was an Iranian Missile was the one that downed passenger jets. When it comes to the status of iran, it is the secretary of state, john kerry, who led the effort on the iran nuclear deal. To iransft hardliners, there were no missile attacks on american facilities, no ships being sabotaged in the persian gulf unable toters move toward a nuclear weapon. Ithout our knowing it the Nuclear Agreement would have been justified if it did nothing more than prevent iran from building a bomb. We have too often forgotten the United States should never go to war on a lark for a lie or mistake. Bonnie in florida, democrats line, hi. Caller good morning. I agree with nancy pelosi, she is doing the right thing and ill caller a while back talked about the bickering. That could have been avoided if william barr appointed special counsel. Everything was presented to the bickeringall of this back and forth could have been avoided had barr not done his job. Host why do you believe Speaker Pelosi is doing the right thing . Caller because the senate is playing a game. They are holding back on doing what they are supposed to do, holding a fair trial with witnesses, with documents and all that. Host why do you think the house should have that much sway over the senate . Caller i dont think they are trying to control the senate. We want a fair trial. We want the evidence, we want the facts. Host independent line, kate from pennsylvania will be the last call for this segment. Good morning. Caller i basically have a question. The house and the senate are supposed to be impartial during an impeachment and Mitch Mcconnell is saying he will side with the president on everything , which does not make it a fair trial. I dont understand how he can say he is going to sign with the president and still be able to rule in the senate in impeachment because he is not neutral, he is siding with somebody. I dont understand why they cannot put somebody else in there who will follow the rule. Host do you believe the house acted impartially when they were conducting the inquiry . Caller i think they did everything they were supposed to do. Host did they act impartially, that is what i am asking . Caller i think they were impartial. Host why do you believe that . Caller i think they let both sides say what they wanted to they were coming from the right of the people, not the. Olitical party if mcconnell cannot do that, he should not be running it. Host kate will be the last call. N this topic coming up, historian, author, former chief of staff Nancy Pelosi John Lawrence joins us to talk about impeachment. Later on in the program, we will talk about yesterdays vote in the house with Michael Waltz of florida. A veteran and members of member of the House Armed Services committee. Those conversations coming up on washington journal. This weekend, book tv features three new nonfiction books. National Constitution Center president and ceo Jeffrey Rosen and Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader ginsburg talk about his new book, conversations with rbg about her life and career. We were married and my motherinlaws home [no audio] i have followed in every workplace, even my current job. Breitbart. Com entertainment editor argues News Coverage benefits the political left in his new book, 50 things they dont want you to know. It goes back to the distressed you see in survey after survey, the American People do not trust the Mainstream Media is telling them the truth. To the rise has led of new media. Word,sunday on after Peggy Orensteins discusses her book boys and sex. Facton has become the de sex educator. Curiosity is natural and for that matter, masturbation is natural and important. What is different for this generation is with the rise of the internet and the smartphone and the dropping of pay walls on can getes, they anything they want and a whole lot of things nobody wants at their fingertips on their phone. Weekend book tv this and every weekend on cspan 2. Continues. Journal ,ost this is John Lawrence served formerly on capitol hill as the chief of staff to nancy 2013. From 2005 to good morning. Talk about your work relationship with nancy pelosi, the things you did and what you learned observing her in action. Years,i was there for 8 two when she was minority leader and then speaker for 4 and then another 2. I saw her operate under a republican president , president bush, and a democratic president. What i learned about her was she is an incredibly talented leader with respect to her own caucus and electorally legislatively, but she is a vigorous advocate for the institution of the house of representatives and you see that yed out can temporarily contemporarily. She stands up to the house of representatives and she finds it pretty perplexing when she sees other people whose constitutional responsibility to the legislative branch isnt exercised as vigorously as she did herself. Host as far as her thinking when she holds onto the articles, what does that mean as how thetanding up for house works . Guest the house conducted the impeachment in korea as it is constitutionally responsible for doing, but the interest does not end there. It is clear they want to know what the terms stand up to to demand knowing from the senate and under senate rules how the debate is likely to take place. She has largely succeeded to helping educate the public about the terms of the senate trial that will occur, so i will expect fairly soon she will send those articles. The nature of the impeachment is it moves to the senate. She has done her job conducting the inquiry and holding the vote and now the responsibility does pass to the senate. Her hope and the hope of anybody in the house concerned about the process should be it is a fair process, open process and the decisions in the senate are based on fact rather than political. Host what is her strategy keeping the caucus together in times like this . We saw adam smith talking about the articles being transmitted and then he goes before cameras and says maybe not. What is her Strategy Holding the house together . From my experience, her strategy is to talk to people in her caucus. There is a popular impression she wields a heavy hammer and drive people into doing what she wants, that is not accurate. Her great advantage, her great strength is her willingness to sit with members and assess where the members are. Reddish the great you dont always get what you want, you get what you need and she determines that by virtue of spending time with members and listening to them. Her job as speaker and leader of the party and leader of the legislative branch is to figure out how to put pieces together. To do that, you have to know what the pieces are. She tend to hold her own counsel or does she talk to others close to her making decisions that will affect the caucus as a whole . Guest she talks to others. She has a strong leadership team. This is a team that knows each other and work together. In terms of congressman hoyer,im clyburn, Hakeem Jeffries but she also has a longstanding relationship with Chuck Schumer and dick durbin who have been personal friends and house colleagues before they went to the senate. You have a really unique relationship among these very powerful Democratic Leaders that you do not often see between the house and the senate. Is John Lawrence. If you want asking questions, you can do so. Democrats, 2027488000. Republicans, 2027488001. Independents, 2027488002. If you want to text your thoughts, you can do so at 2027488003. You can also tweet us at cspanwj. The war powers resolution, if it is a symbolic vote, what is the value . Important. The class of 1974 was elected immediately after watergate, after the passage of the war powers act resolution and what that class did and many succeeding classes was part of at i talk about as a multi bipartisan effort. There are friends of mine who say they really are not coe branches. Congress is the branch that makes coequal branches. Congress is the branch of government that determines whether to go to war or orropriate phones funds pass legislation. There was a period of time when congress was so weakened by inaction that one of the members , a senator from pennsylvania Sapless Branch of government that had run out of power. The war powers resolution is a way to do that. The president can always take action to defend the country, but when a commitment is made to commit troops over an extended period of time, the president has to make that case to Congress Rather than as we saw of massssues destruction in iraq in the early 2000, we get into a confrontation with a foreign power and it becomes extensive, protracted, very costly, over 6 trillion in terms of iraq and afghanistan so far. It is a very important constitutional function. President s do not like it. No president has ever excepted the Constitutional Authority of the war powers act. From the standpoint of congress, it is critical in terms of assertion of the role the legislative branch has. That what does it say three republican supported the measure, but 8 democrats voted against it . Guest there are always people who have disagreements and that is actually healthy you have democrats voting against it and democrats voting for it. It indicates people are independently thinking about the question. It is only fairly recently in our history that we become surprised when there are bipartisan votes and that is the norm and in foreign policy, that has been the norm as well. There have been pricked conservative and more progressive factions. I think it is healthy to have debate whether the senate acts on it or not. We did not have this kind of the golf. Ore in the case of the iraq war, the briefings held, declassified briefings for the gang of eight and water briefings, a lot of people came out and said i dont see the intelligence to justify and yet we went into that war in part because i think it was a republican president , Republican Congress and they were not willing to stand up to the president just as democrats did not stand up to lyndon johnson. That is a mistake. Congress has the response of that he to ask tough questions and the administration has a responsibility to provide answers. When mike lee comes out of a briefing where he supposedly was given the intelligence to oftify the assassination soleimani and says it was the worst briefing he has ever been in as a member of the senate, that should send Warning Signals to people across the country and people should be asking tough questions. Host for those 8 that voted against it, would they expect a call from nancy at least to hear why she decided to vote against it or with they have that sense before going into the vote . Guest pelosi is good at counting votes and rounding up votes, but there are issues that she has always identified as being important moral issues or ethical issues, sometimes religiousbased issues where she understands people have their reasons for voting the way they vote and she does not press them on that and there have been a number of issues around, certainly around choice issues where people have ethical or moral questions and these questions may fall into that category. I am sure she would ask why they voted against because part of this is about the assertion of institutional responsibilities. I doubt very much there would be any heavyhanded response to those votes. The book, class of 1974, the roots of partisanship. Our first call comes from nick. Our independent line from maryland, go ahead. Caller good morning and thank you and thanks to your guest. I will say it as a statement and hope you elaborate as a question. You are talking about an observation you can make at some point. About projects that move the country forward where as it seems like now a political rhetoric is the game. You have so many people running for president and you never hear him talk about fixing roads bridges it seems like you talked a little bit about the impeachment all of this seems like a rhetorical game now and i want to see if you can talk about that and if you agree. And if you do, do you have any other comments on that kind of thinking or distinction . Guest i think you make an excellent point. There certainly has been an evolution over the past decade, decade and a half, towards heavy emphasis on rhetoric. Part of that includes everything from the decision with televised hearings, the floor debate, the emergence of ideology clear based Cable Television and talk radio, and financing come as a result of citizens united, where it puts a greater premium, all these pressures on political purities and more extreme positions. But at the same time, i would point out that even if you go all the way back to nancy pelosi s earliest years as democratic minority leader, over and over we had discussions about things like infrastructure, and these issues have continued to persist over the years. So there is a great deal of interest. I think if you go back to 2018, you saw a great emphasis on health care. The problem here is in moving those pieces of legislation through the process, through the deliberation and the congressional lawmaking process. I will just point out one thing, and i always make a point of this, it is only 10 years ago that congress, on a bipartisan basis and with a divided government, republican president and democratic congress, was able to take swift and very substantial action to everett the worst economic crisis in the country since the Great Depression and did so only a few weeks before a very consequential president ial election. The reason i point that out is it is not the institution of congress itself, not even the structure of congress itself. It is very much the circumstances and the individuals in that institution to decide whether or not it is able to address crucial national issues. Host greenville, north carolina, our line for democrats. Hello. Caller good morning. Know, is anyone concerned about our children when watching what is going on in washington . We punish our kids in school for being bullies and covering up things that are wrong. We have a president in the white who would actually almost start a war to cover up wrongdoing. Guest i think your concern about political rhetoric is very wellplaced. Back in the 1980s speaker tip oneills words were taken down and she was reprimanded in the house of representatives because she used the term, the lowest thing i have ever seen, with respect to some statements that Newt Gingrich had made. Yesterday i was watching the debate on the house floor, and it sounded like members were accusing each other of treason and of acting against the best interest of the United States. There has been a coarsening of public rhetoric, and i think that is true whether it is in the white house or on the campaign trail or in the congress. That is not helpful. In fact, i testified last year before the committee on modernization, the select committee created at the beginning of the current congress, and one of the things i suggested was they take a strong look at what is allowed as permissible speech on the floor. Because you can disagree without being disagreeable, as we say, but i really think we have ,llowed a level of rhetoric particularly a style of rhetoric which is not conducive to working collaboratively or to solving problems. Host many have mentions the statements or actions of the squad, as they are known, those young progressives in the house. Has the caucus changed more crew more progressively, and has that changed the style of managing the caucus . Guest i think the infusion of people at the beginning of this congress was a historically significant event. You know, a lot of women elected, a lot of women from marginal districts, women with military records and professional careers coming in. But i also think it is important to note that it was a relatively small number of people, even within that freshman class, who were successful at being in a great deal of publicity. The overwhelming joy the of people in that class were not the overwhelming majority of people in that class were not coming with an adversarial kind of perspective. Even in the case of some of those folks who may be early on had that perspective, who were still making that transition from being a selfcentered candidate, as most candidates are, to being a member of a collective body, i think even they have begun to recognize that to be effective and successful in washington is to work collaboratively with your colleagues. Host the progressive nature, has the caucus become more progressive . , it isi think in general more progressive. I think the trick here is you tend to win elections in the center outside of safe democratic districts. Several of those new members of this congress who came in and leftrepresenting the more ideological portion of the caucus are coming from safe democratic districts. The majorityu win of the house is because you win seats that go back and forth, and you generally do not win those with ideologically extreme points of view. By do not get to 218 votes just listening to the most extreme elements of your caucus, whether you are a democrat or republican. Is sheit host described as a moderate . Guest i think misses pelosi would describe herself as a very strong liberal ideologically. She represents her district and her own values. She is a pragmatist and has proved that time and again. When getting around to writing legislation, she understands understands the complexity and diversity of her caucus, understands her institutional challenges in dealing with the senate and with the white house, and her goal has always been you look at health care, you look at stimulus legislation or the tarp legislation or a host of other legislation she has put forward, it is to think in terms of getting legislation passed. To do that, you need to compromise. She is able to do that. I think one of the reasons she is able to do that successfully is because no one doubts where her personal politics is. Nobody doubts that she may have views that go beyond what she is able to actually pass on the house floor. Theshe has a commitment to diversity of the caucus and also to legislative results. Host from our line for republicans, this is from texas. You are on with our guest. Caller hello. I have a question. When will we get an accounting of the money nancy pelosi took from Social Security for the investigation and how that money was spent . That is 1. 5 billion she said she was taken from Social Security for this investigation. How come we aint got accounting of where that money went . Guest i have to admit i am not familiar with the argument that she is taking money from Social Security. Social security is a protected separate trust fund within the federal budget. That money cannot be diverted by any individual for nonSocial Security purposes. So i am not sure where that argument comes from. But i do not think you are going to find a much stronger defender of Social Security then nancy pelosi. Host dorothy in north carolina, the democrats line. Caller i would like to say a few things about the articles of impeachment where i think the democrats failed on. I want to name a few things trump hasnt done that everybody should be upset about number one, when Congress Asked for his tax returns, he fought them, and they have a right to to get them. A Certain Committee has a right to get them from anybody. When they asked for an and ing from manoj on how much money trump spent and the money from his hotels and everything, he refused to give it to congress. They are supposed to support that. Another thing, he does not honor any of the subpoenas. He has allowed his family to be in the white house knowing our secrets, and they cannot pass a security clearance. Something is wrong with that. And were supposed to have account of what this president is doing in our government, and it is like this organization belongs to trump. Host thank you. Guest two things, one is with respect to the articles of impeachment, i think that mrs. Policy and chairmanship, chert chairman schiff, chairman nadler, and the others that developed the articles had to make a decision about why the were of those articles going to be, and they made the determination they were going to focus specifically on the ukraine matter and the president s obstruction of congress. They did not go into some of the other issues that the caller mentioned. They did not going to the mueller report, and i think partly that was because of the clarity. Obviously the president was not forthcoming about what happened in ukraine, and we have begun to see that more and more clearly is more evidence comes out about email traffic. And you cannot really argue that the president has subtracted the operations of congress. He has not allowed members of the executive branch to testify. He would not provide information that was subpoenaed. Those articles were fairly clear. Returnsuestion of tax and the emoluments clause and some other points, i would just say that the president the speaker has charged the House Counsel with Going Forward in federal court, and there are also actions in the new york court to secure some of this information. Those continue to proceed. I guess it may be that the speaker did not believe those issues were ripe enough yet to be included in the articles of impeachment, but they are certainly the subject of ongoing litigation by the house of representatives. Independent our line. Bob is in massachusetts. Caller good morning, gentlemen. I would like to know one thing about this impeachment. Nancy pelosi and Chuck Schumer are pushing this thing like they sat in this darn basement and had all these witnesses come in, and mr. Schiff was able to tell the republicans, you cant speak and cannot aspect question. How is that possible, that you can be shut down from asking a question . Mr. Schiff said he did not know the identity of the whistleblower, but when someone asked a question that looked like it might be going towards the whistleblowers name, he said stop. If he did not know the name, why would he say stop . Is there any point when they actually answer for themselves in the criminal prosecution of the president . Thank you. Guest again, lets go back to a couple points, the notion that mrs. Below sea and senator schumer were sitting in a basement somewhere mrs. Pelosi and senator schumer were sitting in a basement somewhere and refusing to listen to republicans, that is not true. Senator schumer was not there at all because hes not involved in the houses activities, nor was pelosi. Those were committee hearings. Lets be very clear, notwithstanding in the way in which the testimony has been characterized, there were republicans at all of those meetings. Over 100 republicans, including some who then demonstrated about the fact republicans have not been allowed to participate, they have been in the room and asking questions. There may be questions that were raised that were inappropriate, that may have ventured into certain types of information that should not be disclosed, may have been classified information. I do not know because anna was because i was not in the room. But we need to dispel this notion that it was some sort of secretive star chamber where unknown witnesses came in and were questioned by democrats and everyone else was excluded. Just not the case. These hearings went on for many weeks, and for every single one of them that i am aware of, it was a Bipartisan Group of members who participated in the questioning. Senatore application mcconnell wants to make when an impeachment happens, going back to 1999 and bill clinton, what do you think about the comparison of using that kind of model . Guest lets remember, the witnesses in the case of the clinton impeachment, as with the nixon impeachment, had testified prior to the impeachment trial and had been provided by the extensivee and had materials, including the president. In this case, we have had President Trump refusing to allow members of the executive branch to testify, even when subpoenaed, and you have had the president and white house refusing to turn over documentation. So these are not parallel situations. You know, you have selectively had members of the executive branch come out and challenge some of the findings or some of the statements that have been made in the course of the public debate. Lets keep in mind, the people in the public debate, those members of the executive branch that came forward notwithstanding the president s instruction to remain silent, they were under oath. Under oath. They were subject to perjury charges if they were lying. The people that come out to stand on the white house lawn and refute those statements, they are not under oath and are not coming before the committee and not offering testimony that would be subject to perjury. Host we will hear more from senator mcconnell from yesterday talking about the articles of impeachment. [video clip] we have the votes. Once the impeachment trial has resolution,ss a essentially very similar to the trial,n the clinton which sets up, if you may recall, what can best be described as may be a phase one, which would include the prosecution, arguments from the defense, and then a period of written questions. Remember, senators are not allowed to speak during the impeachment trial. So basically written questions theitted by either prosecution or defense through the chief justice. At that point during the clinton trial, the issue of the appropriateness of calling witnesses was addressed. Obviously that is the most contentious part of one of these proceedings. And that will be addressed at that time and not before the trial begins. With regard to getting the papers, it is a rule of impeachment in the senate that we must receive the papers. It continues to be my hope that the speaker will send them on over. The house argued that this was an emergency and they needed to act quickly, that the president their point of view, such a danger to the country that they needed to really rush this through, and then they sat on the papers now for three weeks. I hope that will end this week. I understand there is considerable discomfort among senate democrats, some expressing that to some of you, over the continued delay in sending it on over. Host would you like to comment . Guest two comments in response to senator mcconnell. Words that the terms that that were agreed to for the clinton impeachment, they were agreed to at 1000. And i think he is not anywhere near that in terms of proceeding with the trump impeachment. That is his responsibility, quite frankly, as the majority leader. The reason he has such a divergent view and a partisan view is because i do think there is a general perception that he is bulldozing his way into the kind of hearings that he wants, which is to exonerate the president. He is the majority leader of the United States senate and has a responsibility to develop rules that need a consensus, not sibley 51 or 52 votes in the senate, for how the trial proceeds. It is crucial to the senate and crucial to Public Confidence in the senate. The second point i want to stress is this, over and over again we hear that the house has been sitting on these impeachment resolutions, three weeks. Lets remember, most of this period of time the congress has been in recess because of the christmas and new years holidays. We are just getting back to the sessions this week, and i think there is a general recognition that these resolutions will be coming over soon. These are not state secrets. Rybody knows what is in the impeachment resolution. There has been no delay with respect to either setting up the organization for the Senate Hearing or knowing what the parameters of the issues that are at risk are. Most of the congress is not working very hard over the last few weeks, and now theyre getting back to work. I think they will get to work on this quickly. Host independent line. From marilyn, david. Hi. Professorod morning, good morning, america. I am greatly disappointment in our lawmakers. Thats look at the big picture here. For the first time perhaps ever, we have put so much potential power into a foreign leader by having the ability for them to remove a sitting president from also from office, really looking at this, all the ukrainian president has to do is have a press conference with his foreign minister in front of the world and say that we were mistaken and did not want to come out with this before, but we were scared. There was a quid pro quo and was withholding of money. We did not want to say it. And it looks like now that we want to come forward and just reveal this information. And who says they cannot blackmail the president now for more money . If you do not give us more money, then we will do this. And that is dangerous. Our republic can be threatened by that, the leadership of it, because the lawmakers being able , aput that out there potential scenario. Second point is take everyones name off this list. Speaker of the house and party affiliation. The speaker of the house spearheads impeachment effort in order to remove sitting president and Vice President , it is not what you know, it is when you knew it. So they can remove the Vice President and the president of United States if this was host host successful host caller, what are you looking for . Caller everyone is talking about the backandforth, but the big scenario is this has so much damage, and cspan is helping keeping it relevant, as is the story on all the networks. Host ok, we will leave it there, and you can respond if you wish. Guest i do think there is obviously concern, concern throughout the government, that there has been this confusing relationship between president zelensky, andnt exactly what transpired between them. I think that is one of the reasons why we would be well served if some of the witnesses who participated in those negotiations, the chief of staff, secretary of state, and others, came and provided testimony instead of refusing to testify. The fact of the matter is that there are numerous people who were part of those conversations and subsequent conversations who confirmed that there was an understanding that the ukrainian president was going to have to do certain things in order to secure aid. The president has the ability to clear this up, and he should do relevantowing all the federal officials to testify and also by releasing information, including the complete transcript of the conversation with president zelensky. Host John Lawrence, one of the things we have heard from Speaker Pelosi is that she prays for the president all the time. Is that a reality . Guest i have no doubt that that is an accurate statement. Mrs. Pelosi is a deeply religious person. I am not here to discuss the nature of her religiosity, not sure i even could. Has a relationship to the church, and she has that kind of compassion for individuals and certainly respect for the office of the presidency, beyond question. Host from panama city, florida, republican line. Henry, hello. Caller hey, how are you doing this morning . I just wanted to speak on, i thought [indiscernible] the socalled witness behind doors is adam schiff. But the other witnesses, they was not witnesses, it was hearsay. They was professors. One professor said, look, there is impeachable. Impeache been trying to him, especially maxine waters, from the very getting, impeach president 45, and that is the use of language, too. It is like a bunch of kids. First time he try and sit down with the democrats and go across the table, they sat down, all of them, and the media, and nothing done. The other point i want to make, there is a lot of millions of dollars to go to all these fake investigations. I think all the republicans that voted for trump, all the independents, should get 1 million of the 60some million dollars, because that is taxpayer money. Host ok, thank you. Guest obviously, it costs money to do investigations. We hope that money is well spent. On the issues of the witnesses, the professors he was referring to, they were not backed witnesses. They were not fact witnesses. They were talking about constitutional issues involved. Witnesses that justified both publicly and privately had actual knowledge of phone conversations and the meetings that were held. So i think they had a much higher level of credibility than perhaps the caller was giving them. Host cape canaveral, florida, democratic line. Caller hello, thank you so much for letting me speak. I have been a democrat like 85 years nearly, and im quitting because it is just too terrible. I am going independent. I have to say that this professor, he is a democrat, a pelosi fan. Sir, mr. Lawrence, do you realize that they are more democratic professors than there are republican professors or conservative professors . That conservative professors have a really hard time even getting a job in your position host aside from that, what would you like to ask regarding impeachment or otherwise . Caller ok, i believe someone hit the nail on the head when he said what they are really after is the five seats coming up in the senate. And he names the people, who they are, and i cannot remember now, but there are five seats that if the democrats get them, then they will have the majority in the senate. And they are working to hang onto the majority they got now in the house of representatives. And then, although they know that mr. Trump is going to win again, it will not mean anything because they will block everything he does, if they can get that. Host thanks. Guest let me just say this, and i have heard this concern raised before, that the impeachment issue is being pushed for partisan and electoral reasons. One, lets remember that mrs. Poulos he was not anxious to push impeachment and resisted efforts within the Democratic Caucus for months, until the white houses refusal to cooperate became so egregious. Second, if this was really just all about politics, the way you win the majority of the house or senate is in more marginal seats. The worst way to do that would be pushing something that is really contentious like impeachment. So to argue that youre promoting impeachment so you can win those five seats currently in republican hands historically contrary to logic, because the last thing you would want to do is debate your campaign either in the house or senate on an issue that is going to ideologically divide. You would want to run your campaign on the basis of the most unifying issues. So i think it is very hard to make an argument that one would pursue impeachment because you think it would accrue to your benefit in marginal seats. Host from what you have seen, what is the difference between this tenure of the house by seeker pelosi versus her last one . Guest i think there are 21 is that in her last tenure, she had a democratic senate, so she was able to move legislation, under both president bush, where we passed major energy legislation, stimulus legislation, economic recovery legislation, and under president obama, where we passed others. Here you have a senate that is in the republican hands there is nothing necessary there is nothing necessarily wrong, i have worked with both of them for years, but the difference here is that legislation, now over 275 pieces of Bipartisan Legislation have been passed by the house, have gone to the senate and senator mcconnell says this is a legislative graveyard and we are not even going to have hearings were allow debate, let alone consider it. I think those are major differences and you do not have the collegial, collaborative opportunity to work with the senate or the white house. We had that when mrs. Pelosi was speaker of the first time and i was her chief of staff under both president bush and president obama. I think we all want to get back to that period of more productive legislation. But we are not there right now. Guest served as chief of staff to representative nancy 2000 13,om 2005 to visiting professor from the university of california washington center. John lawrence, thanks for your time this morning. Waltz, hear from michael Republican Congressman from florida, a veteran, member of the house on services committee, and we will talk about the vote yesterday on the war power in iran. That is coming up on washington journal. Sunday American History tv on interview with99 the late senator robert byrd prior to the impeachment trial of president clinton. We have a great body of evidence already before us. Much of which is sworn testimony already. Has not been crossexamined. But it would be possible, in my own mind, for us to conduct a trial without buses without witnesses called. Sunday at 9 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan3. 2020 livepaign coverage continues sunday at 3 00 p. M. Eastern was senator Michael Bennet in bedford, new hampshire. Watch live on cspan, on demand at cspan. Org, or listen on the go with the free cspan radio app. The impeachment of President Trump, continue to follow the process on cspan leading to a senate trial. Live unfiltered coverage on cspan, on demand at cspan. Org impeachment, and listen on the free cspan radio app. Washington journal continues. Host representative waltzes on the Armed Services committee and serves the state of florida. He is here to talk about, among other things, the president s war powers, particularly the vote yesterday and what did you think about the effort by democrats . There are two pieces here. One, if we want to have this kind of constitutional debate, the United States has not declared war since world war ii and there has been obviously a series of conflicts, korean war, vietnam war, persian gulf, the wars in afghanistan and iraq. The war powers was put in place postvietnam. I think there are several constitutional issues, but if we want to have that debate or had that debate about the authorization of use of military force from 2001 and 2002, fine, lets have that paired we have had it under the last several administrations. But the type of builder that moved through was the same type of bill be used to name post offices. It was basically what we call a messaging bill, intended to make a political statement that was not debated in committee and was not marked up in the committee, no serious effort to put amendments, like a serious piece of legislation in washington would have. This was intended to take a political shot at the president , not going to get picked up in the senate, and that is essentially that. I think that is unfortunate. Host you have military background in the middle east. Guest i served a number of tours as a green beret across the middle east and still serving in the reserves, so im still jumping out a perfectly good airplanes. Approaching 24 years of service. Combat tours in afghanistan, across the middle east, and west africa. Host when it comes to intelligence matters, i am assuming you were the one to brief on what was heard yesterday. Guest in my background, i have worked with intelligence operatives in the field, and also worked in the Bush White House so have seen it at that level, as well. Host what did you think about the quality of information done by the administration . Guest i think peoples expectation was the head of the cia was going to pass out raw intelligence to 435 members of congress, and i think that was unreasonable. They have made those reports available in the secure facility for members to go read. I went over to the white house a view days ago and sat down and had conversations with the National Security council there, but, look, at the end of the day, the intelligence was described, described by the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, four star general with 40 solid,f service, as very and sometimes intelligence can be very murky, that soleimani was plotting imminent attacks, and that was described as days and weeks, not months, and he was in baghdad to do so after being in lebanon and syria also doing so, and that they believed, the Intelligence Community believed, that an attack on our embassies, diplomats, u. S. Citizens, hostage taking of our soldiers were imminent. If this was somewhat out of the blue, i could see additional questions. But this is someone with a very long history of conducting these attacks, killing many americans. For us veterans, we took this very personally. I cannot describe how many friends and classmates i have missing limbs, missing arms, or who are dead because of soleimani. That he employed were incredibly effective. They were sophisticated, manufactured in iran, employed by iran, and they were capable of piercing all but our best armor, and they did. Host our guest until 9 00. For questions, 202 7488000 for democrats. Republicans, 202 7488001. Ndependents, 202 7488002 and you can tweet us at cspanwj. Guest for me and for many people, what soleimani did up until last week was sufficient to take him out. In my view, he should have been taken out years ago as an enemy combatant conducting compact activities against our forces. That was sufficient in and of itself, and the president did it in a way with very little collateral damage. No civilian casualties. It was targeted and precise peer Going Forward, the imminence that he was going to continue those activities were very clear to me, as well. So i really do not understand the debate. We can have a policy debate over whether this was the right retaliation against what iran had done up to that point. Host we have had democrats on a show this week saying they heard nothing new here you had mike leak from the senate saying he heard nothing new. Guest i think the folks in the room were so upset over the notion, and i think this is either artfully conveyed on the administrations part or misunderstood, because what was conveyed to us was, from an intelligence standpoint, this debate in washington, this divisiveness in washington, and trying to limit the president s ability to respond to iran could be viewed by iran as an opportunity for them to escalate forward. Tfullyay have been unar conveyed that you should not be debating, and that is what he was upset about, not necessarily the nature of the intelligence. I think that has been inflated. Resolutionar powers was brought forth by a michigan democrat, and she was a cia Intelligence Officer ph she made the case yesterday for it. [video clip] the resolution states that the president does not currently have authorization for war against iran, which his own secretary of defense acknowledged in the congressional hearing last month. Second, it requires the president to get top congressional authorization if he wants to conduct a projected war with iran. Third, it makes clear that the president maintains the authority to use force to prevent imminent attacks against the United States or our forces. As someone who spent her career in National Security, it is extremely important to me that this resolution in no way ties the president s hands takes away any capabilities our military commanders to respond in selfdefense for ourselves and for our allies. We have been at war for nearly two decades, which has spanned both republican and democratic administrations, as my colleague pointed out. In that time, congress has a lay voted twice to authorize the use of military force, in 2001 and 2002. Congress has long advocated its responsibility as laid out in the constitution to make the hard decisions we owe our troops when it comes to authorizing war. We owe it to our military and to ourselves as a nation to open the conversation on the authorization of military force, to provide our troops that clarity, and to abide by the constitution that we have all sworn to protect. I urge my colleagues, republican and democrats, to support this resolution. I know it is a political time, goes exactly to what our founders intended. Host response . Guest number one, i constitutional issues with the war powers act, period. And congress has the power of the purse. We have used the power of the purse overtime to limit the executive branchs activity. Two, the last thing i want in such a divided partisan congress, is that the commanderinchief have mother may i backandforth. We cannot get basic things like infrastructure and health care done, and i do not want that inserted into our National Security. Where i have real issue with that resolution aside from the fact that it was nonbinding was you get really murky when youre conducting military activity for the president to come back. For example, Ronald Reagan, when one of our ships was attacked and almost sunk, he responded by sinking half of the iranians navy pier do you know what their response was after that . Nothing. The thing the iranians want the least is war with the United States because the thing they value the most is their own survival. They have a long history of pushing right up to the line and then backing down when faced with strength and deterrence, and i think that is what you saw here again. And i do not, in a very fluid environment, whether it is cyber or more conventional or covert, want to overly tied the president s hands. To be clear, if we are talking boots on the ground in iran, a dday style invasion, some type of long protracted air Campaign Like you saw the persian gulf war, sent in offensive operations, then, yes, the president should come to the congress for an authorization for use of military force. But responding to a known terrorist who was conducting activities in law iraq where we already have authorization was completely within that. Host brenda is in Washington State on the democrats line. Caller good morning. Thank you for cspan. I did watch the debate yesterday on the rules and the authorization, and i was appalled at the way the Republican Party continued to say that the democrats are not patriotic because they are not supporting this president. I was an avid dissident of the 2003 iraq war where i lost family members and friends over it, and i believe i was proven right. I do think the democrats actually have the military people in their thoughts, because they do not want wars. They want to make sure they have a clear understanding. But my real comment is about imminence. Sir, i would like an answer to, how is it giving up sources and methods for the administration to divulge a target and a date . How come they cannot say, well, they were going to cap the sears tower on thursday . That is how important it was. And secretary pompeo and everybody else is already and another shot out to matt my he drops, and you know why said he supported this authorization, because he has got a lot of military. And i have military. So just stop with the disparagement. It feels like we are only not patriotic when we do not support a republican president. Host thank you, brenda. You certainlyone, did not hear any personal disparagement from me. I do not question the patriotism or the motives of my colleagues. And thank you for being engaged. I think whether we agree or disagree, we need to be engaged, and i am sorry for your loss. I can tell you, there is no one who wants war the least except those soldiers like myself and the ones i am wearing the bracelet for just one of the green berets that i have lost that have to go find them. To answer your question directly on the imminence standpoint, the chairman and the director of cia were clear that they did not well, i cannot go into too many details but that the imminence was days, within weeks. This man has a long history of conducting these activities. I will remind everyone that the s force was a declared organization like al qaeda, isis, and many others. It was declared under the obama administration, and he was the head of that course. So from an authority standpoint, he should be treated like albaghdadi and Osama Bin Laden and like so many other terrorists. And if we had the chance to take them down, prevent a future lossoflife, which was, by the reporting, going to happen, i will tell you, this sensitivity of it is that many of these intelligence sources and many of the technical means, whether their satellites or intercepts or what have you are still ongoing and actively being used. The last thing we want to do is divulge those methods to our enemies. This is not from decades ago. Theyre active and ongoing right now. From my perspective from oversight, and i found out months ago as a member of the Armed Services committee that we have actual intelligence to stop the future lossoflife, and if we did not take it, i would be screaming from the rooftops about why that was not done. The you and your losses, thought of sitting across the table from another goldstar family, from another wounded warrior, as a result of iseimani, to me, unconscionable, and i think the president had a sponsor pot to take that kind of action. Host republican line from mississippi, jeff, go ahead. Caller hello. I appreciate your service. He was as death, declared terrorist and was not supposed to be out of iran. [indiscernible] i agree 100 . The man has destroyed peoples of lives, hundreds of thousands in that area of the middle east. And i think the war power deal they done yesterday was a issue just sent iran to say the United States is a bunch of chickens. They wrong. That war powers act, we know in day, werrorism, in our had to be prepared. We cannot be sitting ducks. I do appreciate your service, and i would like to hear your comments. [indiscernible] host thank you. Guest great point. One of the things i do nothing think has been covered about soleimani is that he was a serial and massive human rights abuser. He led forces that have literally tortured, maimed, and killed tens of thousands of people across the middle east. So not only the United States, but the world, is better that this individual is gone from us. The somewhat unique thing about soleimani was that he was the head of a terrorist organization but was wearing a Foreign Government uniform as a general to make an analogy, it would be as though baghdadi were wearing a Syrian Government uniform or Osama Bin Laden wearing another countrys uniform. That does not make him any less a terrace, whether they are sunni, shiite, wearing a uniform or not, they were leading the Worlds Largest and most effective terrorist organization. In terms of white we did not take action before why we did not take action before, i can only speculate on the obama administration, but i feel strongly part and parcel to the iran deal, there were a number of concessions made to try to get that deal in place. Under the bush administration, i was serving in the white house at the time and certainly pushed for taking him down and his lieutenants. Again, they were actively commanding units that were killing american soldiers. But we knew iran would react and there was such a sense at the time that we were so bogged down in iraq, and afghanistan was starting to deteriorate, that there was just not an appetite to do so. Host you make comparisons to Ronald Reagan and how he handled these type of situations. Do you think there is more coming as far as response from iran . Guest i absolutely think more is coming. Iran has a long history of marching up to the line. In this case, i think they misjudged where that line was they thought they could push forward further and attack shipping when the response, shutdown a journalist with no response, attacked an oil refinery, saudi arabia aramco, no response. Our embassy was stormed and killed an american, and by the way, that american was just buried in sacramento, california. I kind of cringe at him being referred to as a contractor, as though that is some type of a lesser being. He was just an american, period. One more at the hands of soleimani was just laid to rest. And no more, enough. I think the president had a responsibility and a duty to stop it. As a former member of the bush administration, i say it should have been done a long time ago. Host new jersey, independent line. Caller i agree with everything this man is saying. To notifyhaving congress in a situation like , without the leaks coming out everywhere, i mean, why would you take that chance on taking the opportunity away to get this guy . I support trump for what he did, and i support this guy right here. Greenbrae, come on green array, come on, this is one of the greatest americans there is. Also, trump was sitting there doing his job as a president. Lets forget all that other crap he is going through. He had a chance to get this guy before he killed any more people, and he did what was right as being president of the United States. As far as the impeachment and all that, why tied that into that . He is doing his job and he said he would take care of us and protect us in the any situation, and that is exactly what he did. So just take the rest of that out of it and look at what he done and why he did it. Guest yeah, it is hard in this town, i have to tell you, to look past the politics and actually look at the action. For the accusations that the president is a warmonger and driving us towards war, again, lets look at it. International shipping, one of our most sophisticated drones, and oil refinery, our embassy, killing an american, and he waited and waited and waited. I think he showed too much restraint. I publicly called for a response after they shut down our drone. They also pointed our radar towards a manned aircraft, as well. After all of that, he waited. He then what did he do, killed one individual with a long history of killing american spirit we can argue whether days, weeks, or must matter, but he was plotting and planning to do it again. I thought that was incredibly restraint. And then even after Ballistic Missiles from iranian territory hit our bases, what was his response . Diplomacy and more economic sanctions. Look, i think that is just absolutely reasonable and proportional. We do want to take a second on iraq. We have to dig at that, and i encourage people in the media and at home today get that for just a second because the part of the parliament that made that vote was the proiranian portion. The Prime Minister has already resigned do to antiiranian protests all over iraq. It was a lameduck government. The kurds in the area that are supportive of our president walked out and did not participate. So i do not know how much merit that holds, just as you see posturing in washington, you see posturing in foreign capitals, as well. Host but you do not see u. S. Troops going out of iraq . Guest i really do not see that. A lameduck government that has already resigned, that was only partially there, i do not see that that really holds. That said, i do not know when the next elections are and what the lameduck government has the authority to do. But i know they have an executive branch, as well. It is a long kind of diplomatic negotiation, and i know the kurds and many of the arab factions still very much want us there. The reason there were protests all over iraq recently was they were being dominated and felt like they were another province of iran. And that was a grassroots protest, unlike what happened outside of our embassy, which was engineered by certain malicious. Really pushing back against irans malfeasance. Also seeing that in lebanon and certainly in syria. Host with all the effort we have made in iraq, are you surprised at the influence iran holds . Guest part of that was when we completely withdrew. We walked out of iraq, and you. Aw iran fill the void under the obama administration. And then you saw al qaeda morph into the rise of isis. Were not talking hundreds of thousands of boots on the ground, but we need a forward presence and need to stay engaged. Iraq, wepresence in need to do that. And remember, these are sharing are she arabs these are shia arabs, different from persians. I think there is a long way to go before we see a unified iraq. Attended,briefing you did it spell out exactly why soleimani was there . Guest yes, he was coordinating the head with the head of the has apollo group and others to attack american assets, american embassies, and american bases. He was there field general. He has been doing this for literally decades. He had just left syria doing the same thing. He had just left lebanon doing the same thing. And then this was him doing the same thing in baghdad, but there, it is an active combat zone and we do have a force. We caught him in a place where he was not in a crowd of civilians, and i think we took proportion action to save more american lives. Host from texas, democrat line. Caller i am a threetime combat veteran. Besides what Political Party a president is from, i do not understand why they are not focusing on the fact that our president spoke and accused president obama of attacking iran in 2011 for political and personal gain. Why isnt that fact being looked at . And the fact that he took the opportunity to take this guy out, and i condone and applaud that, but the timing, nobody is really looking at the timing. He did this as soon as he came down for impeachment. Also, he didnt write before reelection, which is what he accused president obama of going to do, and he did it. No one is actually speaking on that, and i do not understand why. Thet look, in terms of timing, and i think that is frankly why you are seeing a lot of the democrats also question the imminence of it and why now, but i can just tell you that i have sat down with career officials, both military and intelligence, a general with 40 years, the chairman of the joint chiefs inservice under multiple administrations, the head of the cia, a career cia officer, and they felt very strongly about not only the clarity in the intelligence, the clarity of soleimanis intent, and there is a long painful history there. For me, the timing, from everything i have seen, was operational. Normally soleimani hides amongst a crowd, where you see him with his malicious, and i think there would have been a legitimate and of case for escalation questioning of the president s authority had they taken this shot into iran or in iran. Instead, he was in baghdad. Host steve in maryland, republican line. Caller it is an honor, congressman walt. I retired from the army in 2000, and i thank you for your service. The way i am approaching the throughof soleimani is, the geneva convention, which is based upon International Law, and International Law defines an Armed Conflict and war. And i think we are in denial to say that there is not an Armed Conflict between us and iran. They killed six hundred americans, attacked our embassy, and soleimani being a general and wearing uniform is a combatant. And we had every right to kill him. That is basically my comments. Ic, and wein the cannot give too much of the briefing to make that public. That shows what were doing. So i just dont understand where people are coming from on the left on this. We had every right to kill that general. One followup from the previous call in terms of the timing. I think it is a bit of a stretch to say anyone in the trump administration, because of impeachment, caused or coordinated with soleimani and his lieutenants to storm our coordinated them shelling our base and killing yet another american, or somehow coordinated the very sophisticated attack on the world energy supply. We can go down the list of provocations. Again, this was a very patient, probably overly patient we should have responded to the downing of our drone more forcefully, in my view. Again, i think that is a stretch in terms of timing. Yes, article three of the geneva conviction convention, we are defendauthorized to ourselves when overseas, and that is part of the law of land warfare. I think it is completely within everyone host we saw what happened with the killing of soleimani. There are calls for deescalation. Can that exist at the same time . Guest i think you just saw it. What the iranians did was a very public show, which they very rarely do, from their territory which, in my view and in keeping with past actions, was meant for consumption, to say they forcefully responded, but pretty ineffective. When you look at saudi aramco, there were cruise missiles and drones, very accurate missiles, and i believe that was deliberate. We will go back to where we have been, to the point that iran has been at war with us since 1979, and i think you will see a pause and reassessment on the iranians part, and then you will see their covert activities continue but now they understand that this president will respond. Host representative Michael Waltz of florida, member of the Armed Services committee. Thanks for your perspective. That is it for our program today. The house of representatives is just about to come in. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2020] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] the speaker pro tempore the house will be in order. The chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. The clerk the speakers rooms, washington, d. C. January 10, 2020. I hereby appoint the honorable david n. Cicilline to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. Signed,