That is of concern to the committee, not just the house,. Ut the Judiciary Committee was a served their, it bipartisan committee. They have to Work Together and create common cause with National Security. As we have seen over the past few years, the committee has become partisan upon both sides. We can blame the current ,hairman in the former chairman but that may be part of the climate at play and will unfortunately play into the dynamics. That partisanship we see in the hearings and on cspan coverage, does that carry down to the level of the Staff Councils as well . Mr. Jaffer it didnt used to. When the chairman and Ranking Member would come in, they were new to the committee. It has gone through these phases of being partisan, bipartisan, and partisan. Phase where not only is it happening in front of the cameras, but devolving to the staff level. They are not far apart, but given the current dynamic in public, it is hard to imagine it is bipartisan. Linked to the redacted report, the office of the Inspector General, by the whistleblower. , whatou look at that . Ould have to rise up to be to be an Impeachable Offense . What more would have to come out of this . Guest the constitution refers to high crimes and misdemeanors. As we know from having to go through the clinton impeachment, those terms do not have a defined meaning, at least not one that we have identified specifically. There was a lot of talk about what it meant when the constitution was written. Other people believe you should look at it in an evolving way. Impeachment turns out to be a political decision than it is a legal question. There is no legal to standard to say if the house votes in the senate convicts, no court will say that was wrong and it does not meet the standards. That is a political decision for the political branch. Then, the house essentially and the senate become a judge of what that term means. Is it a federal crime, no. Doesnt need to be more than a federal crime, it does not have to be. The question here is, does the house believe it has the votes to recommend articles of impeachment to the senate, and if all the facts were prudently true and brought to bear, does the senate find fault. If they do, they remove the person, whether it is a judge, sitting member, or the president. We will see what happens. Based on the current facts, there is an open debate. I think much more will come out. The house will do a big investigation not just of this complaint but other things around it. That will be interesting to see and whether that will lead to things that people believe are Impeachable Offenses. More will. The house will do a big investigation not just of this complaint but other things around it. That will be interesting to see and whether that will lead to things that people believe are Impeachable Offenses. Host he served on the senior counsel for the Intelligence Committee 20112013. Republicans your line is, 2027488000. Emocrats, 2027488001 independents and others, 2027488002 send us a tweet, and text us at 2027488003. A lot has been made of the term quid pro quo, explain what that means, and does there have to be a quid pro quo for some sort of offense to be cited . Guest the term means an exchange, one for another, i gave you this, you give me that. People have been debating this question is , these, if in fact president was saying if you do this favor for me, investigate joe biden and look into the , but do thisaine and i will do some favors down the road. Quo,is there a quid pro no. Itwe talk about impeachment, is a political decision for the house and senate. There is no requirement that the president violate any law. A law that is on the table and might be in play as the Campaign Finance laws. Was the president after something of value for his campaign in exchange for something of value for the government. That is why this debate is taking place. What people really focus on are andtwo pages, pages two three. Discussion by the president of ukraine saying i want to buy missiles. Response is not let us talk about the price or the work or how it will work. His responses, can we talk about the server of ukraine. It could be the president is changing topics, or it could be the president of ukraine asks for x in the president says if you give me y, i will think about it. People need to focus on if it was a quid pro quo. It does not need to be, but that is the ongoing debate. If there is a conviction there needs to be a suggestion of what was in play. Caller the house investing host the house investigators giuliani. Naing rudy what sort of records innocent in this investigation would this committee seek to find. Guest if they are looking for anything into the substance of the allegation, the claim that the president was in an priateriate an unappro exchange of value, if there is it would be impeachable. Because the president brought Rudy Giuliani into the conversation during the transcript, it is not surprising that the investigators want to know what he was doing. Stu giuliani has been on tv public about his role in ukraine and what he was doing. So the question is does he have any way to protect the information . Does he have privileges . Attorneyclient privilege, because Rudy Giuliani is president trumps personal attorney. Said i was not behaving as an attorney, which would undermine a claim. Then there is a question of executive privilege, was he a personal envoy of the president. Was he on a mission . If you remember in the days of George Washington, he sent john jay to negotiate the treaty. He refused to give the house the records of the negotiation. George washington said this is not part of your role, and i will not give those those private you those private negotiations. It does not matter that i used a person acting in a nonofficial capacity to do the negotiations. Host that is some longago president. 7 guest 7092. 2027488001 for republicans. 2027488000 for democrats. 2027488002 four independents and others. Surely, on the republic shirley, on the republican line. Caller this is very important. What i would like to ask this they be goingld on with this inquiry, wanting to impeach when they have no proof. Hearsay, he said, she said, and nobody wants to say i said. I heard. This is ridiculous. You know what, really the people in this country, it is a shame. They all need to really check on their own what they have done in their life. Have they lied, said a little white lie. It is about time we get down on our knees and ask god to take charge in this country. He sent trump they are to do a job, and believe me, nobody will take trump out of there because god almighty sent him. Raises au know, it good point about this complaint. A lot of people have said that the complaint is inappropriate because the whistleblower does not claim direct knowledge. The whistleblower heard from somebody else. Heard from somebody else that the records had been stored in additionally compartment did files and computer systems. It was all hearsay. The flip side to her point is that now the president has sent a transcript which is a record of his direct conversation. This debate over what the president said, what he was implying when he was talking about the server, ukraine, and joe biden while the president of ukraine is asking for military support, does that mean he is about to Exchange Value . That is not hearsay. The committee is looking to get testimony from some of the people on the phone call. Mike pompeo was substance of the the abstinence of late was on the phone call. It is unusual for president ial aides, whether they are cabinet officials or people on the white house to actually testify, because you want to protect the confidentiality of communications that the president has with other leaders. Have candid conversations. The more that comes out the less likely it is to get the candid conversations. It is where that line of privilege is. Congress won the document and they will be the tussle. The president has been transparent in that he has declassified the whistleblower complaint and given the transcript. Caller let us hear from arizona. Caller i just made an observation that looking over , youre going to have patriots, i do not think you guys will be carrying that. It is a serious event that they are looking at. Host i think he is talking about the mention of a potential rally in washington. That is here from indiana, republican line. Caller good morning, and thank you. The only thing i want to say is there is nothing in the history of the United States to impeach he has awhen conversation with somebody else. , from the first day, mr. Trump got elected, they were after him. That is a fact. They wanted hillary to get elected, but she did not. That was the election, they chose him as the president. Host thank you. Anothere raises important point, which is that there is a feeling that after the election and the surprise election of donald trump, and a feeling that the president has helped through his tweets and conversations. The partisanship on capitol hill of democrats and republicans has stoked this idea that people have always been out to get him out of office and this happens to be the latest thing and they will grab onto it and run with it. Mccright democrats have wanted impeachment since day one. The question is how does that play into how the house will vote and whether the senate will vote to convict. That will weigh heavily if impeachment articles have their way. Should it, that is a harder question. Should it be on the merits, or thecan or should republicans have said that there is an effort, and people feel the way that they do that there is an effort and has long been an effort to remove the president on any basis, this is the one people have grabbed onto. Host it will be along this path of the speaker proposing that they vocus on the ukrainian issue and the phone call, which is a very narrow path. Will the Intelligence Committee right the articles of impeachment and pass it onto to the Judiciary Committee . Guest as i understand it, this is a new dynamic, we have only had three impeachments to date, this will be the third or fourth. Or, attempted up he impeachments, i should say. Theircommittees will do investigation and provide the evidence they find and report in their jurisdiction. The Judiciary Committee will draft the articles will be voted on in that committee and then go to the floor to be voted on they are. If passed, it will be prosecuted by prosecutors supported appointed to represent the articles for a trial in the senate. Host there is nothing in the procedure that says the house has to votes first before we have the inquiry. People are saying they have to vote first, but they do not. Guest as a general matter, the houses investigative power is and oversight powers do not in do not require. My recollection from the clinton impeachment, i do not involve recall voting to begin an investigation, that was done under the purview of the chairman. From let us hear from deb wisconsin, democrats line. Caller i have a couple of questions. I am wondering why the program this morning started with our host saying quid pro quo and the guest adding, after the word solicit, the words and get something in return. If people would look up the law cfr 110. 20, there is a prohibition on solicitation by Foreign Nationals. It does not say anything about getting anything in return. Thato find my comment is it is very interesting. I had a that with my husband. Cspan decided to make the call 5050 this morning, so that half the calls were showing that they were against impeachment, as i polls. Ng the i feel that you do that to help republicans, and you are helping them to feel comfortable that half the country must be on the side of this lawbreaker. Host your point on the phone lines, we separate them for various segments, and that is not the reason. We have different ways of dividing up the phone lines. Quo versus quid pro solicitation. Guest the federal election campaigns act, the relevant law that might apply here. It does prohibit the solicitation of an american of a Foreign National for Campaign Contributions. Thinking, Campaign Contributions does not have to be money. These are debatable points. It can be something of value, it is not just that i ask for cash, i could ask you to paint my inse or campaign office, an time contribution. If you were to solicit a foreigner, that would be unlawful. There is a question, was the president soliciting campaign help . That is a debatable point. There are a lot of legal questions about that. But impeachment is not a legal issue, it is a political question. The legal question is what the president will say. He might say i want to investigate corruption. And i want to root out corruption in a foreign country. That is a say that reasonable or silly argument, but it is an argument in the sense that he will have to prove that he was trying to get something of value as the goal in order to prove. Host that is the process is noa criminal process, it is a political process until and if and until the president is found guilty by the senate and the senate trial. Could a president be held responsible or could he be charged with crimes if he were convicted by the senate . In criminal court and civil court after he leaves the presidency . Guest i do not know that it will take a senate conviction. If the president would leave office, as a general matter, the government has taken the view that the president cannot be prosecuted for official acts. That is not free from doubt. The speech and debate clause is very clear, it says that anything said on the floor or house of senate, you cannot be sued for it. Whether the president could be for an official act, or a pseudoofficial act, that is a harder question. The general position is that not while the president is in office. When he is out of office, whether removed or left office, or the end of an eight year term, then it is a more open question. And it goes to the question was the act official, wasnt official in the time of office but not unofficial. Those are harder questions that i think may or may be not be debated or may not be debated. We have not seen suits afterthefact. We saw them against richard nixon, from my recollection i cannot recall any prosecutions by the government of a president. There are also the political questions. Party isf the opposing elected, and they were to pursue a president criminally of the other party, that would cause huge political tensions and maybe that is why we have not seen that. The our guest served as lead senior counsel in the house Intelligence Committee 2011 to 2013. Now at George Mason Law School he founded the National Security institute. What do you do there . Guest we were set up to identify hard questions and National Security law and identify realworld actions. Law is about Civil Liberties, which is a very important debate. George mason talks a lot about Civil Liberties. We find it important to talk about Civil Liberties and National Security and have the discussion in public and help give ideas to members of congress and elective officials about how they can solve thelems and reconcile important, competing values and our National Security while preserving the privileges that americans enjoy. Host let us hear from cindy, north carolina, independent line. Caller good morning. Thank you for taking my call. I would like to know, does the president have a right to inquire, and i believe he does by law, to any Foreign Government about corruption in a former election, 2016. Does he have a right to inquire to any leader of any country about corruption in our own government . This letter, the way i understand it, where the secondhandedly got information that the president was looking at biden. Wasrding to the letter, he what the president said was he was inquiring about election. In the 2016 is this fact or something that they are still debating . Nancy pelosi wants something ,hat is ripe for impeachment and it is just confusing about why she is pushing something and saying that it is our National Security. It is our National Security, for a president to know whether there is corruption in our own government. Host ok. Importantin, an point. This is the debate. Congress and the democrats are concerned that the president was trading a thing of value for some political gain. Republicans in the senate in the house or saying no, the president was asking about corruption and wanted to root out corruption in the prior election and get to the cause of the investigation into alleged russian interference in the election and how that began. That is what these were about, these were effectual acts as his role in president , the soul oregon of the nations Foreign Affairs and not to be questioned. This is a debate that the country will have. Say what you want about what happened and the underlying thing is, there are a lot of debates and a lot of people are troubled by that conversation. The president has been beenparency can has transparent and put the transcript out. We have a chance to have that debate in congress and potentially in the senate about what was the meaning of the phone call. Are there other phone calls like it . Were there other foreign leaders where similar exchanges of value were discussed or similar topics of corruption were discussed . Is it important for the country to know that. If so, how much do we need to know . Do we need to know every call that the president has . Is this president special . We should not let the moment overtake us. There are important values at stake longerterm about if it is right to do. These host host are tough debates. Let me get your thoughts on news that we are seeing that the president pres