tv Washington Journal 02082021 CSPAN February 8, 2021 6:59am-10:04am EST
politically dysfunctional. the senate is in this afternoon. a vote scheduled on the confirmation of dennis mcdonagh. a hearing with medical experts on the development and distribution of the covid vaccine. ♪ >> you are watching c-span, your unfiltered view of government. c-span was created by america's cable television companies in 1979. today, we are brought to you by these television companies, who provide c-span viewers as a public service. -- to viewers as a public service. >> coming up, a preview of former president trump's impeachment trial, beginning with law professor and author kimberly wehle. after that, newsmax host and
former press secretary sean spicer. and an update from a capitol hill reporter about the senate trial, which begins tuesday. we take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. washington journal is next. ♪ host: good morning. it is the washington journal for february 8. congress gets to work this week to hash out details of president biden's almost $2 trillion plan for covid relief. part of that process is who will receive the $1400 direct payment. reportedly, the president is open to changing the requirements. some democrats say that should not happen. some republicans offering their own proposals as well. when it comes to this first hour, do you think there should be changes on who is eligible to
receive 14 or dollars and why? -- $1400 and why? if you make between $30,000 and $59,000, (202) 748-8001. 60 to $100,000, (202) 748-8002. over $100,000, (202) 748-8003. less than $30,000, (202) 748-8000. you can tweet us and, if you want to post on facebook, facebook.com is how you do that. the broader proposal -- 1.9 trillion dollars is the estimated price tag. a lot of elements when it comes to unemployment insurance individual moratorium and the like, but $1400 payments is the one coming under scrutiny over the last couple of weeks, particularly who gets that. ford's take you back in time if
you go on their website to who got the $600 payments when they were passed. it was based on 2019 gross income. those married and filing jointly earning $150,000 -- under $150,000. that brings us to the discussion of the changes on who is eligible to receive that 14 or dollars. the hill reporting that it is the house majority leader steny hoyer saying they can be adjusted. what most people have raised the issue on, both in the senate and house, i think that is correct, hoyer said. i do not want to speculate, but i think that may be under consideration for adjustment from the one passed in december.
when it comes to this idea of this $1400 payment and who should be eligible, do you think that the requirements from last time should be used this time? should there be changes to those requirements? you may have other thoughts as well. you can call and give us your perspectives. we had divided the line by economic means. you choose the line that best represents you. you can also post on our twitter feed and facebook page. you can let us know. as we are taking your calls, we take you to janet yellen, treasury secretary for president biden. one of the questions she was asked was this idea about eligibility and here the perspective she brought. [video clip] >> one of the main discussions now is about who should receive the direct payments from the stimulus package. almost every senator agreed with the resolution that passed thursday to say that upper income taxpayers should not get direct payments. they do not define what
constitutes an upper income taxpayer, which may be is why it was so easy to pass it. what do you think the cutoff should be? $50,000? $75,000? where? >> president biden is certainly willing to work with members of congress to find what is fair, and he would not want to see a household making over $300,000 receive these payments, but if you think about an elementary school teacher, policeman, making $60,000 a year and faced with children who are out of school and people who may have had to withdraw from the labor force in order to take care of them and many extra burdens, he thinks, and i would certainly agree, that it is appropriate for people to get support there.
the exact details of how it should be targeted are to be determined, but struggling middle-class families need help too. >> so you think higher than $50,000 for individuals, but you are not necessarily willing to commit to $75,000? >> yeah. i think the details can be worked out, and the president is certainly willing to work with congress to find a good structure for these payments. host: that was the treasury secretary, janet yellen, yesterday giving us perspective. if you make under $30,000, (202) 748-8000. if you make between $30,000 and $59,000, (202) 748-8001. (202) 748-8002 if you make between $60,000 and $100,000. if you make over $100,000, (202) 748-8003.
kathy starts us off this morning and michigan. -- in michigan. what do you think about these changes? caller: first, we need to address the people that make the least money. they should receive larger amounts than anybody who makes, i don't know, even when i make. i always think about the homeless, the people who have nothing, and are they included in this? i don't think that they are. or people who haven't filed taxes. are they left out? i am thinking they are. i would cut it off at $65,000 and i would not give them anything per-person. if you cannot manage your budget on that, it does not matter where you live. expenses are high across the board in this country. your expenses are high -- when you make more money, that's not true. we start with the poor and go from there. host: kathy in michigan.
this is rose in orlando, florida. you are next up. caller: some of the people were kind of bragging. oh, i don't need the check, but they sent it anyway. to those people, i recommend they opt out. there has to be a way they can opt out instead of bragging about how they do not need the check. thank you. host: as far as these discussions unchanging that, is that something you support? rose hung up. barbara in oklahoma, good morning. go ahead. caller: i would like to know why they are giving, or they did give, the prisoners money. biden is also talking about giving the illegals that are coming in the same amount of money and i do not understand that when either. host: when it comes to the
current discussions on changes or potential changes, do you think it should be changed or should the last requirements be the same this time around? caller: we are already taking care of illegals. i mean, geewhiz. who else are we supposed to take care of? i am fortunate i have a home and can get by on my money. host: did you get a stimulus payment last time? caller: yeah. i did. host: what did you end up doing with that, if i may ask? caller: pay bills. i mean, i have bills to pay, and so i just -- i got to pay a little bit more on them than i usually do. host: ok. that is barbara in oklahoma giving us perspective there. some of you posting your thoughts on facebook this morning. this is tom powell, saying that when it comes to the
requirement, it should only be used by those affected. we were not affected but we received it anyway. linda saying in part just because you can get by does not mean you do not deserve a check. many seniors draw less than $18,000 a year. they still get a check every month. they do without it to be able to survive if they have not accumulated debt. people in food stamps are getting more now. it is a rather long post. jenny matthews saying i think it should go by 2020 income and not 2019 income, adding that many people lost their jobs in 2020. then saying no -- benjamin saying no, because they will spend that money, which will help the economy. again, your perspective offered during this hour. you can post on facebook on
twitter, call on the lines, and text us if you want. we will take one small break to talk with scott wong of the hill, because as we talked about come a lot of things happening this week on two tracks, impeachment and covid relief. let's start with impeachment. what are we expecting this week on the senate side? guest: good morning, pedro. the house impeachment managers worked through the weekend. on saturday, they met by zoom, according to sources i spoke too close to the managers. on sunday, super bowl sunday, they began working in person in the capitol throughout the entire day. the lead impeachment manager, jamie raskin of maryland, apparently allowed them to break around halftime of the super bowl to be with their families, to allow capitol police, who
were providing support, to watch the second half of the football game, but as we know, the game was pretty much over by then. but these managers say that this is going to be a very different impeachment trial from the first one just a year ago. they say that they have overwhelming evidence, largely supported by the video that was taken at the white hous ell ipse, when trump gave his save america speech. they have overwhelming video over than's they are going to show -- video evidence that they are going to show from the capitol itself, from the insurrectionists, often livestreamed by the insurrectionists themselves. they have hours of video. they say that has made their job in convincing these senators and the american people much, much
easier than the last impeachment trial, where it was an extremely technical trial. the legal arguments were technical. it was a much more convoluted argument that the investigators were making, adam schiff at that time. so jamie raskin and his other impeachment managers believe they have a much easier time in proving this case. as we know and have discussed before, pedro, you know, only five republican senators have said that this trial is constitutional. democrats will need 17 at least republicans to join if they want to convict at this point. that seems extremely unlikely. this looks like we know the outcome of this case. i think what raskin and what some of these other impeachment managers are trying to do is to
appeal to the american public, to try to get the american public on their side. already, we have seen that 56%, i think, according to the latest abc poll, of americans already believe that the president should be convicted and should be barred from future office. so raskin is looking at that public opinion number more than the 17 republicans that he will need to get a conviction. host: then, with that tightened timeframe that you spoke about, witnesses probably not part of this process. guest: it does not look like it. you know, i think democrats, and joe biden himself, want this to wrap up fairly quickly, perhaps by the end of this week, because their top priority, and if you listened to democrats on capitol
hill last week, there was almost zero discussion of impeachment. much of the focus last week was on the divisions in the republican party liz cheney and marjorie taylor greene, but there was almost zero discussion on impeachment. almost all was on this coronavirus package you discussed because congress and the white house understand the dire situation that exists in this country today with the death toll now, you know, hovering around 450,000 americans. the unemployment rate still incredibly high. people unable to find work and the medical community really stretched to their limits, really to a breaking point, and people looking for solutions in terms of how they can get tested, how they can get the vaccine. so that has really been the priority, so we will sort of see a split screen happening this
week, although in impeachment trial, especially one involving the ex-president of the united states, is certainly unprecedented. there will still be a lot of focus on the coronavirus as that package comes together in a more detailed way. host: walk us through the mechanics, particularly on the house side. guest: of coronavirus? host: yes. guest: in terms of coronavirus, what the democrats and nancy pelosi have said in recent days is that she hopes to really get the details of this 1.9 trillion dollar package that has been proposed by joe biden, get the details of that figured out within the next two weeks. some people say that's pretty ambitious, to get something passed through the house of representatives, which it looks like it is going there first. what she has told democrats in
writing, in a dear colleague letter, is that they will at least pass the coronavirus package by the end of february and send that onto the senate. that is sort of their hard date. i think by telling her people in a meeting with joe biden and her committee chairs last week that they wanted to get this to him within the next two weeks, it is pretty ambitious, but she intended for her committee chairs to move as quickly as possible. time, she says, is of the essence, and certainly it is a bad situation, so they want to get moving on this quickly and get it over to the senate, which will be working out its own issues with this package. host: scott wong, as we have been talking before we spoke with you, this idea of changing the parameters of who receives the $1400 direct payments a reality at this point, would you say? guest: yes.
joe biden addressed that issue very briefly in a phone call without the democrats -- call with house democrats last week. he opened the door on the idea of lowering the income eligibility threshold for people to receive this $1400 check. let me be clear -- he is holding firm on the $1400. a lot of americans will or have already received $600 from the last package. he wants to expand that to $2000, so he wants to add $1400 in this next package. he says he is holding firm to 14 are nodal -- to $1400. but he is open to lowering the income eligibility for which americans would get that check. as you pointed out earlier, janet yellen is open to lowering that threshold for people who make $60,000. i think it was up at $75,000 in
this last round from last year. she wants to lower that threshold to about $60,000. that would mean less people would be eligible for that full check. joe mentioned, the moderate -- joe manchin, the moderate democratic senator from west virginia, has looked at a $50,000 level. that means less people would be eligible for the full check. they are toying around with the price tag of this $1.9 trillion package. one way they could go with that is to listen the amount of people who could be eligible for those checks. host: scott wong reports for the hill, joining in to give us the status report for impeachment and the mechanics of working through this proposal by the president on covid relief. scott wong, thanks for your time. guest: good to be with you. host: scott wong's -- about
eligibility requirements. in jefferson station, new york, luke waiting on our line, thank you for waiting. go ahead. caller: i wanted to comment on who the checks should be given to. what they should be based on. i believe it should be income from the 2020 taxes. when i was in college back in 2019, my parents filed me as a dependent. the job market crash. i lost my first job in the pandemic, went seven months unemployed before i picked up another job. i am calling on your $60,000 and up line. i got lucky, but a lot of my friends did not. a lot of those who are unemployed are not doing how it. they do not have that morale
boost every. if i were to get it, it would be great, but i think they need to the -- they need to look at the people who graduated in 2019, because they got shafted. host: frederick, maryland on next, john on our line for those who make between $60,000 and $100,000. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: my feeling is if you make as much as i do and are working or are able to work, there is no reason why you need all that money to help supplement yourself. it is the people who make less money or are not able to work because of the pandemic. so those of the people that really need it. host: so the targeting is a good
thing in your mind as far as changing those requirements? caller: there are a whole bunch of different factors that need to be included in what makes the decision. it is not an easy answer by any stretch of the imagination, but there need to be questions asked about who really needs -- host: some of those factors are questions, what would be on top of that list? caller: who is unemployed right now? who is unable to work because of the covid virus? those of the people that need the money, not those who are working or who are able to work, who make a very decent living. host: ok. john and maryland. -- in maryland. let's go to ellen on our line for those who make less than $30,000. go ahead. caller: good morning. i believe the first word you read from the news, the first
line of that, including resident aliens should be eliminated. i agree with the previous two scholars on the income, but i do not think any illegal aliens or their dependents should be included in this gift, and i would like to say one thing on the trump trial. a question, if i may ask you -- host: we will keep it to this topic only because we will have plenty of time during the week to discuss the second impeachment trial of president trump, but to your question about mixed families, as the category is being considered when it comes to might receive these checks, on cnet, saying if it becomes part of the final stimulus bill,, the move to include mixed status families, it is estimated 16.2 million
people in the u.s. live in a mixed status family, with 14.4 million of those excluded from a payment. it goes on to say in the article here are some examples of mixed status families that would qualify for a stimulus check -- for stimulus check. one spouse is a lawful permanent resident with the social security number. the other is a citizen. neither is a citizen or a lawful resident and doesn't have a social security number and the child is u.s.-born. there is more if you want to see about that on the cnet website. part of the discussion going on. from columbia, missouri, paul is
next. hello. caller: it really upsets me, the fact that, you know, i am 57 years old, getting ready to turn 58. my mom is 81. in about three days, she will turn 82. she suffers from dementia. she gets less than $1200 a month. i get less than $1200 a month. we make it every month barely. we live in a broken down old trailer. you know, these republicans have shut down everything the last four years, and why they did not get this passed when they had the votes i do not understand. host: you are saying past the $1400. what are you saying about the requirements for last time? would you change them.
caller: they should change the requirements. bring it down to $60,000. these people making $100,000 do not need it. let's be realistic. dr. frank: i mean -- let's be realistic. you know. my son makes probably about $30,000 a year. he has four kids to feed. he and his wife work all the time. i took care of them when they were out of school. i was taking care of my mom. you know, before covid hit, i was trying to get her help, trying to get somebody to, you know, to watch over her and have somebody come in and then the covid hit and she was gone and i could not get anybody here because of covid, so i was in, you know, taking care of my grandkids, because we don't have
wi-fi where i live. i was going into town and making sure they were getting to school and checking on them periodically. i do not have a life. i have not had a life in 10 years. and we live in a broken down trailer. just last week, i finally got help in here. it has been over a year. host: ok. paul giving us some perspective from missouri. let's hear from a resident of bessemer, alabama. this is jerri. hello. caller: good morning. i like your show. i am under $20,000, on social security, and the $600 that i got last time, i took $200 of it and went and bought nonperishable items and took them to the different food banks and drop them off. -- dropped them off.
i do agree that $60,000 is a good number to consider, and -- but i think those that say they don't need it can just get it and give it to charity or the food bank. host: what compelled you to give part of that $1600? what drove you to do that? caller: that was just 600 that we got. host: right, but what compelled you to put two hundred dollars to a food bank? caller: because i know there are people, children -- well, a lot of people, but children mostly, some families that are struggling, especially single parents or parents who are in the service industry that were locked out and are suffering, so feeding other people is a priority to me, feeding
everybody in the united states is a priority to me, and if i was a billionaire, i would be spending my money on saving people. host: that is jerri in bessemer, alabama giving her perspective on the $600 payment. you can put that in the mix too if you want to tell us what you did with it and about it when it comes to eligibility. dean and belafonte, pins -- dane in bellefonte, pennsylvania. caller: i would like to see the stimulus targeted to people. i have been working from home since last march and that has not stopped. so i have been ok.
as far as income and being able to move money and pay my bills, it has been ok and i want to see everyone being that position -- be in that position. if there is a way to blend, somehow, the actual needs of individual families and target the money to them, that would be great. i understand that takes more time. anything that makes sure the people that need it the most get the most. host: dave in pennsylvania giving reasons of why changes should be considered. you can make yours. the line if you want to join us are divided economically. (202) 748-8000 if you make under $30,000. (202) 748-8001 if you make between $30,000 and $59,000. if you make between $60,000 to
$100,000, (202) 748-8002. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. you can call us at that number if you make $100,000. you can text us too. you heard dave talk about why he agrees with changes. one person not agreeing with potential changes is senator bernie sanders from vermont. he was on cnn yesterday and was asked about this idea of changes to eligibility. he gave his perspective and here's a little bit. [video clip] >> i think what we have done in the past and what we have promised the american people, we said two things in the last month. we said we will get you $2000. $600 plus $1400. we will say that everybody, an individual, $75,000 or lower, and a couple of $150,000 or lower, will be eligible for that full $2000. $600 plus $1400. when people said we do not want
rich people to get that benefit, i understand that. i agree. we need to have a strong -- so it does not spill over to people making $300,000. that is what i support. but to say to a worker in vermont or california or anyplace else that if you are making $52,000 a year you are too rich to get this the -- this help, the full benefit, i think it is absurd. and from a political point of view, it is absurd that under trump they would be getting the benefit but under biden they would not get the full benefit. from a policy point of view, we have to do the right thing. that is 75 thousand dollars and $150,000 for a couple. for a political debt from a political point of view -- from
a political point of view, it is absurd to tell someone making $50,000 they are not eligible. it does not make sense to me, nor does it since make -- make sense to the american people. host: jim in fern hollow saying their family made $200,000 in 2019 and next to nothing and -- in 2020. sue saying who would imagine we would be discussing another round of stimulus nearly one year after the economy came to a halt? if the government will distribute additional assistance, i would like to see small businesses receive a lifeline. elvin saying only $1400 is not enough for people who make under $50,000 a year. the canadians have been giving a stimulus payment of $500 a week in canadian dollar since the start of this pandemic.
we can do better. another perspective internationally, lee saying my friends have only received 85% of their salary during the pandemic. one $1400 check is a joke compared to the eu. wake up, americans. some people are texting us this morning at (202) 748-8003. you can call us on the lines too and post on our facebook page. james in bristol, tennessee, your next up. hello. caller: what bernie sanders was saying, i completely understand that, but my wife and i, we make less than $20,000 a year. i am sure that people in that range should have the stimulus check, but what i do not understand, a friend of mind, the husband owns a company. he makes maybe 250,000 dollars a
year. they filed separately and both got checked the other time. -- got checks the other time. bernie sanders is talking about people who have union jobs to make $60,000 a year. they do struggle with their house and car payments, but i do not really feel people making $250,000 a year should get a stimulus check. host: from bruce, dover, new jersey, your next. good morning. caller: i feel for what bernie sanders said. he talked about the topics i was thinking about. my hat is off to bernie. i really think that if we do get the stimulus, you have to target the lower income people first. then, if you are going to pass complete $1400 for everybody, go higher up the ladder. and i think that -- sort of like
the country, like bernie was saying, it is turning towards socialism. unless we can keep everybody fed and warm with a roof over their heads, we are not going to be able to keep people from getting violent and disruptive. host: in your mind, is there a figure, then, as far as who should not receive, a salary cap, so to speak, on who should receive a check? caller: i believe come originally the lower inc. -- i believe, originally, the lower income people, one to 30? they should get it first. host: but at what point would you cut that off? caller: i would think $60,000, because -- i would think $60,000
for a single person and $110,000 for families. host: all others calling on, if you would not mind, turned on your television to prevent your appearance. -- to prevent interference. tax filing part of the eligibility requirement. in the wall street journal, saying, why would it matter when you file your tax return? congress is likely to tell the irs to use 2019 2020 income, whichever the government -- the payment is made. those who file soon after the irs starts excepting returns on february 12 will likely have their payments based on 2020 family income and payment side. those who wait will likely have it based on 2019 income and family size. if it is filed electronically, someone says it is processed immediately and the information is available to the irs
instantaneously. he was the top tax policy official at the treasury department. more on that story if you want to follow along with that at the wall street journal this morning. marlene is next in minnesota, alexandria. hi. host: good morning -- caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. the only thing i can say about this stimulus check is i do believe they need to have a larger oversight as to how this goes out. i know of people that make a whole lot, way more, than i do. i am on social security and i got my 600 dollars, but i know that there is so many people who earned over $150,000 that each of them in the family got money. i said, that is not right. it just is not. there needs to be some kind of
oversight when we distribute this money. it is almost like the unemployment money. people in prison work getting stimulus checks -- prison were getting stimulus checks constantly. i just think that that is wrong. terribly, terribly wrong. host: marlene, if you and others want to go to the website of the government accountability office, congress -- they do work for congress as far as research and related items. they have a section called covid oversight. you can check out some of the reporting there. again, the $1400 only one aspect of what is being considered on capitol hill currently. dr. frank: that figure -- on capitol hill currently. that figure is being debated among other things when it comes to the relief package. from vermont, tom is next. hello.
caller: good morning. the $600 came under trump. all while biden was running saying he was going to give us a $2000 stimulus. we heard it many times from him. then he gets in office and he is taking credit for the $600 that trump already gave us, and now we only wants to give $1400. all the time he is running, it is $2000. what about the $2000? host: should the eligibility change from the last time the money was sent out as far as who gets it? caller: yes. if they are making over $300,000 a year, they should not need the stimulus. host: is that the threshold you would set that high you go over than that -- that high or would you go over than that? caller: a lot of people have huge mortgage payments and bills. just because you make more, they
spend more. they can have tight times too. myself, i experienced a lot of expense with this covid, and i am sure a lot of other people have. i have had more than five tests for covid, have been hospitalized twice over it. a lot of big bills from it, you know? and the illegal aliens, they should not get the checks. if you are not a u.s. citizen, you should not be getting a covid check or a stimulus check. host: all right. we will go to lisa, louisville, kentucky. caller: thank you for c-span. i think it should be capped at about $100,000. after all, what i make here in louisville, kentucky sure does not cover the expenses if you live in new york or california. i also think that part of the plan that biden has, money for
unemployment, i think you should get your full unemployment and not a penny more. my husband is an essential worker. he gets nothing extra on the hour. he works a union job. i think the unions need to stand up and make sure essential workers also get extra money, which they are not getting. after all, we are covering the tax base. are we still paying our taxes? i know a lot of people cannot now, so i do believe it should be capped at about $150,000. host: we had two payments go out. were you a recipient of those and, if i may ask, what did you do? caller: i was. one, we helped get our roof repaired. the other i still have sitting in the bank. i have not decided. i will probably take a couple hundred or go to a food bank. we also go at christmas
time and pass out envelopes to the poor. i am not in terrible shape, but i try to help the poor in any way i can. host: do you think it should be as stringent as only those who are directly affected by covid should get a stimulus check? caller: no. i believe it should be based on what you make. host: lisa in global, kentucky -- in louisville, kentucky. in gulf breeze, florida, hello. where is that? caller: just east of pensacola. host: got you. go ahead. caller: i think we need to separate just the payments for the american people from all other. i think president biden could be a real hero if he just focused on helping the people individually in a package and
then they can argue about states and other types of payments. and i think it should be cut off at $100,000 and it should be retroactive. it should include mixed families. we should go back to march and there should be $1000 a month to everybody. every family that is paid -- that, you know, is under $100,000, because how can you put a price on what these people, what this country has gone through? the rights we have sacrificed, the fact that people have lost loved ones who could not be at their funerals, the essential workers who have put themselves in harm's way and have done these jobs. we need to focus on the people and i think that if there were any extra money, if the family did not need it, they would
either put it into the economy by buying goods and services that they need that they have not been utilizing, maybe improving the technology or their vehicles, whatever. i just think it needs to be retroactive. i think it needs to be big and bold and generous. and a new fight over the billions and trillions of dollars that you have given other activities globally. host: i want to make sure i understand. you would separate the direct payment from everything else proposed. you would focus on that. caller: yes. i think it needs to be an immediate concern. i mean, people are really at the end of their ropes. they have been locked down and it has just been extremely stressful. people have been getting sick and having mental health issues.
how can you put a price on all that has happened? other countries, like canada and the u.k., they have done it. i think, this is the best country in the world. we can certainly step up and help the american people and exclude us from all the other craziness that they are fighting over in that stimulus package. host: that is teresa's point in gulf beach, florida. she talked about the direct payment. we have a list of everything being considered as far as the $1.9 trillion figure that you heard scott long talk about that congress will have to consider. direct payments, unemployment insurance supplements, eviction moratoriums, reopening schools, expanded sick leave for workers, tax credits for families with children. a lot of things being considered. in fact, as of this morning,
another thing being considered -- and the washington post has it as its lede story, possible money for child poverty. jeff stein saying that under the proposal by senior democrats, the irs would provide $3600 over the course of a year per child under the age of six and $3000 per child ages six to 17. the size of the benefit would diminish for americans earning more than $75,000 as well as couples jointly earning more than $150,000 per year. payments would be set monthly beginning in july to give the irs time to prepare. that is part of a program to fight poverty. that is a new element being reported on in the washington post. overall, we are talking about direct payments, what you think about that and who should be eligible. we have set aside lines for many of you according to your income
category, including those making over $100,000 a year. that is arthur's category off in san diego. go ahead. caller: hi. i have a question for you. if we are the richest country on the planet, why are we being so stingy? i mean, you act like there is not enough money to give everyone the little pittance you are asking for, that the current government is asking for. foreign countries like canada and europe are giving their people to thousand dollars a month without question -- giving their people $2000 dollars a month. don't we have a progressive tax system that gets it back? if i receive any stimulus money, i will use it to pay my taxes, which california, very nice
place, and we pay high taxes. host: who should directly get the stimulus money, and if those requirements should be changed, is that something you endorse? caller: what i would change is the unequal tax system. now, i am just barely 100,000, and that has been the last few years with tax changes. i think get the money out. here in california, we have a problem in the state is on fire, we do not think, well, water is hard to come by, so let's put the very minimum amount of water to put the fire out. we put the fire out and we do not worry about the water. the money is not water, but we have a much bigger problem than fires in the forest. host: ok. arthur in san diego giving that
perspective, an analogy. sheila on facebook -- why not consider households rather than per individual? carl seeing, no -- carl saying, no, these people are disconnected from reality if they do not think people making over $50,000 a year do not need help too. this is political malpractice. he goes on. paul novak saying they must have proof of citizenship. mark from twitter saying set aside a fund and set the criteria to qualify for assistance. make it easy to apply. that way, the people that need -- and he emphasizes that -- get it and we save money. let's go to brenda in indiana, pennsylvania. hello. caller: good morning.
yes, i do believe that the income guidelines need to be lowered. just for example, every year, the irs comes out with income statistics. and, last year, i household earning over 130,000 -- over 100 -- and, last year, a household earning over $137,000 a year was in the top 10% of income brackets. so i believe that, for a single person, may be up to $55,000 a year, and a married couple, maybe up to $100,000 a year, because, if they got laid off for covid, their unemployment will be fairly substantial, plus they have the extra $600 of enhanced unemployment. also, if you are making that much income, you should have a little money set aside in liquid
savings to kind of tide you over, whereas people making less than that do not have the opportunity to have money set aside. thank you very much. host: joe in maryland. go ahead. your next. -- you are next. caller: good morning. my issue is i am an essential person. i have been working through the pandemic and getting my normal salary, so i do not think i should all if i to get the $600 or $1400 -- i should qualify to get the $600 or the $1400 because i've got my salary all the time. second, people who have retired should not qualify either because they did not lose any money. they essentially are getting a $600 or $1400 bonus, and yet they did not really earn that. the people who should be affected are those who lost their job, did not have economic
stability that they had the past. they should get the stimulus money. people who worked all year long, essential personnel, eliminate them. eliminate people on retirement income because that is their income. they did not lose any income because of the covid virus. that is just my thought. i think we have to target the people who really need the help, those who lost their jobs and lost their income. host: joe in maryland giving us that perspective. i did want to mention the passing of george schultz, secretary of state in the reagan administration. passing away at 100 years old. in the washington post today, there is an op-ed by former secretary of state condoleezza rice. she writes, he made an impact on corporate, academic and
governmental institutions by imparting lessons we could all apply when we were called to lead. be sure to garden, he would say, insisting that relations were like flowers in a garden that needed.tending -- that needed tending. never fire your weapon -- never point your weapon unless you intend to fire it, he would say. and democracy is not a spectator sport, a phrase he proudly wore, and we need to remember in our challenged and battered country today. the statement of condoleezza rice on the passing of george schultz. laverne in georgia, you are next. caller: thank you for taking my call. my comment was we do not know people's status, their lifestyles and what they had to go through during this covid, so just because you are not
struggling or because you are struggling, i do not think there should be any changes in the amount that you are making as far as a certain amount of money that you are getting. i think that they should reconsider may be the people who are like $200,000. they should keep it the way it was in the beginning because people are struggling. some people have had to take the little they had saved to make ends meet. so each individual and each household is different. you not know the struggles people have. -- you do not know the struggles people have. host: gary is next from decatur, alabama. good morning. caller: i want to know what is the poverty line, what they make? host: i don't know the direct answer to that, but keep going with your thought and i will try to find it. caller: i think that people that make below -- i think that
people making below the poverty line should not pay any taxes, state or federal. the working poor. there are a lot of people that work. why should they pay any taxes? they should help the working poor more and get money to them faster and they could live a better quality of life. right now, it used to be, you know, you can go to goodwill and buy something for two dollars. not anymore. they tax you. a taxi when everything. if you could do that, to help the poor, it would be a much more reasonable thing. host: gary, while i have you on the line, check out the website federalregister.gov. they have figures on poverty guidelines in the u.s., saying that for a person of one, that
guideline is $12,760. that rises to 26,002 hundred dollars for a family of four. a family of eight, that rises to $36,000. let's go to ronald in boston, massachusetts. caller: good morning. caller:you know those rich people are lying. i am 80 years old. why are they talking about $100,000? you know that is too much. it should be $75,000 or $60,000. host: why those figures? caller: because you have the rich people telling lies. they get the money. $100,000, $150,000, 200 thousand dollars, they do not really need it. they do not need that money. host: lets go and hear from leroy, braddock, pennsylvania. you are next up. caller: i just want to -- i
mean, i have been waiting around for the $600 that was supposed to come in. i am on ssi -- not ssi, but disability, and i am still waiting because i was told that, you know, if you filed taxes in 2018 that, after that, you got the $1200, then you did not have to worry about filing the taxes if you were on disability or social security, so they made a mishap and sent the money to different accounts and stuff and it did not go to my direct deposit and i have been sitting here waiting and everybody else seems like they got theirs. i am saying, what the heck happened to me? host: you are not the only one
in that boat if you read this story from cnbc, leroy. they talk about people who have not received the six under dollar payment. they offer some guidelines you may want to check out. make sure you still meet the requirements for the money, adding the checks phase out at the same rate as the first payments, but the caps for reduced payments are lower. individuals with $87,000 of income and couples with 174,000 will not receive any payment. so if you received the reduced payment last time, you may not get the money this time. they also add that the $600 rounds were based on. the 20 tax returns more there. if you wanted -- more there if you want to check out the website. barber in california, in
concord, hello. caller: they should at cap it at $100,000. my husband don't get no more overtime. why don't we stop paying for trump and his family's secret service for the next six months? that should be in our pockets. host: we had a caller saying $100,000 is too much for someone to receive this type of payment. you would not agree? caller: i depend on my husband's overtime. i live paycheck-to-paycheck. he did not do bad, but still, it is not right. your callers are calling about illegal aliens. nobody is an alien unless we all are. they have to file their taxes. they do not get them back at the end of the year like we do. host: rich in livingston, illinois, you are the last call. go ahead. caller: you have a lot of
debates going on about how much, but i believe i have the fairest way. host: ok. caller: let's stop taking taxes out of everyone's checks for the next three months. host: and why would that make it fair? it doesn't matter if you make 30,000 or 150,000. everybody gets their own. unless, of course, you don't have a job. then you get nothing. host: livingston, illinois. they will be the last call for this segment. thanks to all of you who participated in this program and segment. we will turn our attention to the second impeachment trial of former president trump scheduled to start tomorrow. joining us to walk to the legal mechanics and what to expect, if university of baltimore law professor and expert on these
topics. we will have that discussion next. later on, we will hear from the former press secretary secretary of donald trump, sean spicer, currently a host, and we will get his perspective later on in the program. those conversations coming up on washington journal. ♪ >> the second impeachment trial donald trump against a with centers deciding if the former president should be convicted on incitement of insurrection. watch our live coverage of the senate impeachment trial starting tuesday at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 2, c-span.org, or listen free on c-span radio app and if you missed any part of the proceedings, watch any time on demand at c-span.org/impeachment. tonight on the communicators. ellen powell, former ceo of
reddit and current ceo of project include, a diversity consultant company. >> what we are seeing is a change of heart. that changing from the system where people get to take their work with people who look like them, but they are most comfortable with. they don't want to stop that. it doesn't matter what the numbers are, they will find a way to challenge them. it doesn't matter what the arguments are, they will find a way to challenge them. they really just want to be a force of change and before to admit that the system that they were so successful in was actually rigged. that they are not actually the product of a true meritocracy, a true system where everybody had a fair chance. it is hard to internalize that. i think we will continue to see pushback in that is one of the reasons why we do need these rules. announcer: watch tonight at 8:00 eastern on span two. -- on c-span 2.
with the biden administration now leading the federal response to the coronavirus pandemic, follow the latest at c-span.org/ coronavirus. search coverage of news conferences as well as remarks for members of congress. use the interactive gallery of maps to follow the cases in the u.s. and worldwide. go to c-span.org/coronavirus. washington journal continues. host: joining us now is a law professor at the university of baltimore, also author of how to read the constitution. inks were coming back on the program. guest: thanks for having me. host: we talked with you on the first impeachment trial. can you remind our viewers what to expect as far as the processing formalities this time around. guest: we will see the trial briefs that will layout cases.
it is unclear whether we will actually have live testimony. if viewers recall, last time there was a debate between republicans and democrats as to whether directly call witnesses, it turned out there were no witnesses called. my understanding that the democrats are planning primarily to make the case through video evidence and the president's tweets, so that is unclear. in theory, the senators are the jurors. instead of the chief justice of the u.s. supreme court, senator patrick lady will preside over the trial and we will see each side make its case. the house impeachment managers are the prosecutors on behalf of the democratic side. they will make the case that donald trump knowingly incited insurrection on january 6, and then we will hear primarily
legal arguments from the defense about the propriety of trying a private citizen, given that donald trump is no longer the president of the united states. host: let's start there. that the constitution scope out any legitimacy for that argument? guest: the constitution mentions impeachment six times. the framers cared a lot about impeachment but it does not expressly state one way or the other whether a trial can happen after someone leaves office, but there is, historically, a secretary of war. there is an example of someone leaving office and then actually having a trial after leaving office. there is precedent for that. i think the weight of the legal authority is that it is not all that persuasive, but it is unconstitutional. the only way we definitively would know that is if it went to the supreme court and there is no way for that to happen really any meaningful way. i think the fact that the trial
is happening means is constitutional because the united states congress decided to go forward with it. and without the ability to have a trial after someone leaves the office, not just the president, someone could quit and avoid a trial altogether which would sort of nullify the trial part of the impeachment process. i think it is a pretty weak argument, frankly, that it is unconstitutional to have the trial right now. host: there is a lot of attention being made to an op-ed in the wall street journal by a conservative lawyer who makes the argument saying that this process is constitutional. if removal were the only punishment that can be imposed, the argument against trying former officers would be compelling, but it isn't. the senate can impose an optional punishment on conviction. to hold and enjoy any office of honor and trust under the united states. and then he adds, that
punishment can only be imposed on former officers. can you expand on that? guest: with the argument is, in the constitution, it provides for two possible remedies. just so everyone is clear, this is not a criminal trial. a criminal trial can put someone in jail. that has to happen through the judicial branch. this is primarily when someone is still in office, a decision as to whether someone should keep their job. it is a hiring-firing decision. the constitution provides for another remedy and that remedy is to prevent someone from holding public office in the future. for that, as the writer indicates, that doesn't depend on whether someone is still sitting in office or not. for that part of the constitution to be meaningful, the trial makes sense after donald trump leaves office. it is the remedy. the idea is the penalty is that
this was so serious that he really is not any posture to legitimately run again or there are dangers to having him in office again, given how things wound up with violence the first round. host: our guest is with us if you want to ask her questions about what to expect on the second impeachment trial. you can text us your thoughts and you can also offer your thoughts on twitter and on our facebook page. the house impeachment managers targeted several sections of the president's speech on january 6. i want to play you one section now that was highlighted and then we will talk to you about it after that. trump: now it is up to congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. and after this, we are going to walk down, and i will be there with you, we are going to walk down.
anyone you want, but i think right here, we are going to walk down to the capitol and we are going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women and we are probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them. because you will never take back our country with weakness. you have to show strength and you have to be strong. we have come to demand that congress do the right thing. and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated. lawfully slated. i know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. today, we will see whether republicans stand strong for integrity of our elections. but whether or not they stand
strong for our country. host: i want to emphasize you're not a house impeachment managers, but is there an argument to be made for incitement? guest: yes, the argument is that he stood and said we are going to march to the capital and that we need to show strength, not weakness and we need to take our country back. that is a call for taking action and we heard some of the people that participated in that event say i heard the president calling me to actually storm the capital. on the other hand, we also heard him use the word peacefully. so i think the argument would be on the contrary, listen, he was only calling them to sort of stand there and protest and speak, not to actually storm the capital, but there are more facts that the democrats have to build the argument that he
knowingly incited violence in particular when the crowd was shouting "hang mike pence." after that shout went up, the president tweeted something about mike pence being cowardly. the argument would be that he knew about the potential for violence and he stoked that violence by encouraging potential harm to the vice president of the host: the president's lawyer, at least one of the team was on the radio station in philadelphia. he talked about this idea of incitement, at least the arguments that he was planning on bringing up in this process. we want to play a little bit of that interview and then get your comments on it. >> there are statutes that deal with incitement of riots, and it is not even close that the president engaged in what could be considered criminal conduct. and then there is a test called the brandenburg test set out by
the supreme court. i analyzed that at length, and that is not even close to it. i don't believe there is a chance in the world that they are going to be able to demonstrate that he committed those crimes, or even anything approaching them where you can make the argument that it was perhaps beyond a reasonable doubt, but more likely than not, i don't think there's going to be any possibility at all. at some point in this country we have to recognize that people are responsible for their own actions. the president deplores the violence of the capital, and those people should be punished. but just because somebody gave a speech and people got excited, that doesn't mean that it is the speech maker's fault, it is the people who got excited. host: that is a preview of the
argument we are going to hear, what do you think? guest: first, this is not a criminal trial. it is not at all clear, if burton even applies. donald trump under no circumstances could have his liberty taken away or go to jail, unlike some of the people that have been arrested who participated in the riot. so there is a test under the supreme court first amendment jurisprudence that requires a showing of intent to actually incite violence and the standard for the line between free speech and a criminal action of inciting violence is pretty high. it is a high burden of showing' the presidents intention to do that. again, not clear that applies here because impeachment is about abuse of the office, and the first amendment was passed after the impeachment clause we
are talking about, so many scholars believe the first amendment does not even really apply here. there is also a line of authority that if you are acting as a government agent, you don't have the same level of first amendment protection. say i am a government employee. if i make a statement, i can be fired for that statement. if i make it as a private citizen, my first amendment rights would kick in. by all accounts, he was acting as president and saying listen, come help me stay in office for four more years. i don't think those arguments are technical arguments. these technical, legal arguments, i don't think that the president somehow has no role here. that is not really fair to the thousands of people who showed up at his behest, and over 100 that now arrested, some might actually lose their liberty. he is in a position that he has
a tremendous amount of following and support. to say that he is not responsible for anything he said as president and those who support him are just totally on their own, hanging out to dry, that is not a realistic approach to any president and the framers understood that presidents do have an impact and obligation to act with integrity when they are in office, and that is really what impeachment is about. i don't think that argument is persuasive, frankly, that somehow the president wasn't part of this, that these are all just rogue followers. that is not a logical argument. let alone a legal one. host: our guest has a book out, "how to read the constitution and why." mike, line for republicans, you are on. caller: good morning, pedro. good morning, miss whaley. i will start off by describing
what i think of the democrats proceeding with this, and i called and i called in the insane clown posse so that will probably give you the general idea of where i stand and sit on this issue. i think it is absurd in every possible way. you are making a good argument, you are obviously very norge a bowl -- knowledgeable about the constitution and so on and so forth but i think it is a bridge too far. i think just the fact that the president exhorted the people at the rally to be peaceful. right there, matt tells you he did not exhort anybody other than to march, other than to show their displeasure and their desire for the electors in five or six states to be looked at closely. in a nutshell, basically, he was not doing anything more than what al gore did in 2000 in the state of florida.
in wanting to -- except, multiply by five. we have five or six states where there was doubt passed over how the votes were counted, it was not hanging chants, it was mail-in ballots. as the previous guest said in the first segment and as so many have said, this has a snowballs chance in hell of ever getting to 67 votes. it is simply not going to happen. but the previous guest made an interesting comment that representative raskin, a highly partisan democrat from maryland, he is doing this for the american people and to change public opinion. that is a load of we all know what. if that is what this is all about, then it is purely political. it is not about getting a conviction, which they all know no one will get. host: let me leave you there because you put out a lot already.
let our guest respond. guest: i would like to see actual witnesses called by the democrats, to get to some of the questions that the caller is raising. that is, did the people in the crowd actually hear him calling them to storm the capitol? what other communications were made? maybe we will hear from some people that were with donald trump while he was watching the livestream. what is his understanding of what was happening? what was his intent? a trial is not supposed to be predetermined either way. it is up to the senators in this moment to make that decision, i agree with the caller. this is a political process, in theory. it was set up that way by the framers of the constitution, but that is not a reason to not have it. i think we have to try on for ourselves this concept of precedent.
ask yourself, you might be a supporter of donald trump, i am a constitutional scholar, a law professor, and mom, frankly, and i say to myself that this kind of thing that happened is now ok, are you ok with it happening if joe biden doesn't get a second term? that is, every time we hand off power from one president to another, we are going to see thousands of people climb over the capitol, smash windows, kill people. there was urine and feces and blood throughout the capital for days. the message really is that this is not ok. i want to say one other thing about florida and this process. when it was turned out that al gore lost that process, he peacefully as vice president gaveled in george bush.
this time, there were 90 judges. 60 lawsuits, 90 judges who all said there was no evidence of fraud. but donald trump kept that lie going. as a law professor, unlike politicians, judges are bound by rules. they have to limit what they do based on facts and laws. republican, democrat, whoever they were, they were hired by these judges. they had no choice but to dismiss the lawsuit because there was nothing there. i really think the best thing to do for donald trump would have been to concede defeat factually and not continue this myth that brought these people to washington in a pandemic. they spend money on planes, trains and automobiles. they took time away from their families to perpetuate something that was just false. the american public was duped in that moment and i think there is some accountability for that and i don't want to see that happen again with another president.
the message has to be this is not ok going forward, we don't want this behavior. host: rochelle, new york, democrat's line. rosetta, go ahead. caller: i want to say that... i keep hearing everybody talk about impeachment, impeachment. which, he should be impeached. but you said impeachment is an abuse of office. but it is not criminal. why isn't it criminal? why couldn't the democrats say ok, we are going to impeach him for criminal activity as well? this is prior to the covid business coming out, from the beginning. my whole point is why shouldn't he go to jail? he should be in jail. if you went to jail, that would be like killing two birds with one stone. first of all, he would not think
about running for office because he has been a criminal, he has been in jail. host: go ahead. guest: so she makes an excellent point. just to be clear in terms of terminology, he was already impeached. that is the same as someone filing a civil complaint against you, you get slapped with a lawsuit. but again, impeachment is not about crimes, can't put anybody in jail. it is about basically the process for whether you get fired. we all have this in our employment situation. there are certain lines we can't cross. if we cross the line, we might get fired or we might get some sort of retribution based on acting badly at work. that is for congress to do. what she is talking about is either for the department of justice under joe biden and presumably, merrick garland, the nominee for attorney general, to bring an investigation and actually criminal indictment against donald trump personally,
or it could be the district of columbia at the local level deciding there were laws violated and then indict donald trump personally. that is completely separate decision. congress has absolutely nothing to do with that and i think that comes down to frankly, the political appetite for the biden administration to use its resources and political clout on something like that rather than focusing on covid relief, joblessness, the financial hardships, health care, climate change, things like that. you were the put his ever there and not on thinking about what to do about some of these qualms with donald trump. but it is not off the table. there are investigations happening in new york at the state and local level for the investigation. i don't think della trump is out of the woods from the criminal standpoint but that has absolutely nothing to do with
impeachment. firing decision for basically a job badly done. host: brent, jacksonville, florida, independent line. caller: yes. this is the second time that democrats have impeached president trump. the first time he was impeached for the ukraine business. that is what democrats always do. project their sins onto the republicans. since biden was corrupt with the ukrainian through burisma.
now after a whole summer of democrats burning and looting a whole country over the guise of bls, a marxist group -- host: when it comes to the second impeachment, what would you like our second guest to address? caller: what should happen is the trump lawyers should put the senate on trial. why was there no security if they were warned by the new york fbi office? the bombs were set the night before. the first breach of the capital is while he was still speaking. they knew there was chatter online that people were going to do it. the conservatives don't have a history of rioting and breaking buildings. conservatives respect police, respect our country.
host: ok, we will let our guests respond to that. guest: in terms of fighting in ukraine, there are facts on the record publicly supporting the idea that joe biden was somehow involved in some corruption and maybe that is the case, but it has not been verified in any way. i think it is false, we don't have that. the question is not asking that it be undertaken. donald trump asked that there be an investigation opened into joe biden regardless of how it came up. i think the idea that he was trying to influence the election, that is problematic. just for clarification, with respect to what happened with the black lives matter protests and on january 6, it is really important for people to keep in mind what was happening on january 6, which was the handoff of power. the united states congress was sitting in the capitol and if
they had come a couple minutes earlier, we would have seen members of the united states congress actually hurt or killed. that is a different situation than defacing private property, which i don't condone, but in terms of the constitution and legitimacy of our democracy going forward, january 6 is much more serious. but i want to say i could not agree more with the caller that there needs to be investigation into the spectacular meltdown of intelligence and law enforcement on january 6. i live a few miles from the capital and have lived there for many years, i was sitting there watching with my mouth hanging open, where is the law enforcement? capitol police do answer to the united states congress, there was also local police who seemed to be sort of mia. frankly, the president had authority through multiple federal agencies, law enforcement agencies, that should have been there.
there's also reports that members of the u.s. congress were calling larry hogan, the maryland governor, calling the virginia governor, asking for reinforcements, national guard reinforcements, and the department of defense that answers the donald trump denied larry hogan that support to help the united states congress. that is absolutely critical. mounted police officers, barriers, bomb sniffing dogs. we don't have our act together when it comes to protecting some of the most sensitive sites in the united states, and that is the capital with the united states congress. i agree. if it doesn't happen during the impeachment trial, there needs to be a deep investigation as to why on earth january 6 left our
united states congress so vulnerable to domestic terrorism. host: on the first impeachment trial, we had hearings, we heard from witnesses. a lot of information leading up to the impeachment. guest: one of the answers we saw in the impeachment charge was due process. let me just explain a little bit about due process. due process goes all the way back to common-law england. they said we are tired of you telling us what to do. one of the rules was you can take away my rights or my liberty. the high point of due process is before the government can put you or me in jail, i get a
trial. here, dollar trump did get a hearing, a full trial. within the united states congress, they deliberated whether to issue the article of impeachment which again, is just like the charging document, comes out of the grand jury. you don't get a full trial. and he is getting his hearing in the trial. so he gets a lot of process here. the supreme court has said if you are a disability recipient, if you get disability benefits and the disability benefits are so important to your family that without them, you would basically not have enough food, you would not be able to pay your rent, the court has said were due process rights are limited to a paper hearing. you don't get a hearing before government can take away that property. so donald trump and anyone in this position is getting a lot more process or procedure about hiring and firing decisions than
some regular people would get one comes to taking something away from regular people that has a big impact. as far as due process, that is really not a problem. we should feel comfortable that any president is going to get plenty of process by virtue of the impeachment process and then again, the trial in the senate. host: kim teaches law at the university of baltimore. republican line, texas. caller: good morning. i have seen you one tv around the first impeachment trial, and you are clearly, in my opinion, clearly a lawyer who is clearly biased, but it makes me curious to read your books. i am going to go and do that. but i have three quick questions. the chief justice is not providing, so you have got a guy who hates president trump, who
is sitting in clear judgment of him, that is amazing. he is presiding. number two, you are not making a good argument on evidence. the other caller from earlier from north carolina, he made it out perfectly except that he was cut off before he got to the part about the crystal clear proof of preplanning that has been found by law enforcement. trump had nothing to do with it. the third thing is that i heard you ask if we were ok with this happening to biden, and i would say ask the democrats who tried to basically float the russia collusion. that was baseless, plus, the last three gop presidential elections were challenged by the democrats. so i think ultimately, this
trial is like everyone says, it is a sham, but i'm going to watch it because it is going to be good political theater. host: thank you. guest: thanks for your comments and i certainly really appreciate you taking a look at my book. i think we are in an environment right now where, and i talked to my students about this a lot, where we think too much in terms of teams. team red, team blue. we look for evidence to support our point of view as red or blue. maybe people perceive me as biased one way or the other. lawyers grapple with gray areas. most of law, like life, hard decisions are not black and white it is thorny, vague, difficult. but i am a traditionalist, i care about the constitution and how it functions and there has to be consequences for crossing
lines. that is where i really think things have fallen down when it comes to donald trump, and that might sound political, but we have seen democracy itself degrade and i think it is a concern that it will function going forward, that we will have , in five or 10 years for my children, something other than democracy. i just want to put a pin in this. republicans signed on to a brief united states supreme court out of the state of texas by the attorney general of texas. 126 house republicans signed onto that case. that case was asking to cancel millions of votes in four other states. that is unprecedented. i am a believer in democracy by the people, not by some powerful democrat or republican canceling
votes, snatching votes based on technicalities in valid or an argument that covid changes were not perfectly made legally which is very ambiguous. that is not democracy. that is something else. it is just not democracy. if we are going to say we should take votes from voters, millions of votes, people will follow the rules and want to pick their own leaders. that is just something else. if we are going to move away from democracy, let's have that debate. i don't think it is a political debate. as i said before, i am a mom, i have four kids. i want democracy for my kids. that is what i am fighting for, the notion of democracy itself which is ling away. i want to say one thing, the chief justice of the supreme court should be presiding over this trial. this online magazine called the boulevard, you should not have
exercise this unilateral authority to step out somehow and the democrats should not have gone along with it. he clearly was supposed to be presiding over impeachment of president and donald trump was acting in his capacity as president. he should be there and i agree, patrick lahey does not have the procession of -- perception of neutrality. host: i was going to ask you if there was a message about the unconstitutionality of it that the chief justice was not there. guest: i think that is the perception. i think someone made that argument, rand paul of kentucky made an argument. that is why the chief justice should put into the senate and say how do you think it should come out, should it be me, should it be someone else? instead, he just did not want any part of it. that is not up to him in any view. unless there is a case for controversy that asks the court to decide whether once the president leaves should be the chief justice of the supreme court, the argument was, listen, he is no longer president, so i'm out.
that is not clear in the constitution. i have a lot of respect for the federal judiciary but i think chief justice roberts should have stood up for the constitution and the integrity of the process and made it a more neutral process by actually showing up this week. host: democrat in pennsylvania, go ahead. caller: yes, i just want to get down to the real point and here we go interjecting racism. as a group, blacks, muslims, native americans, mexicans, there would have been a bloodbath that they are still cleaning up. but because they were angry white men and women, they just stood by and watched. they are still angry with cap her neck for not saluting -- with collin capric for not -- collin kaepernick for not
saluting the flag. it angers me. they know that the president instigated that. i will let you go with that. host: thank you. guest: i don't think we can overemphasize the racial disparity in january 6. i think the caller is 100% correct that if it was people of color, it would have been a very different response just based on historically, this country was founded on the backs of enslaved people of color and it lives in our consciousness. it just does. that is not about donald trump or what happened on january 6 in terms of his culpability. the csa member of our society like the rest of us. he has stoked racism as president, but i don't think that is going to be his play this week.
it is something we need to think seriously about as a country but i just want to get back to this question about what happened to law enforcement just so people are clear. the president, joe biden, has the power to control the u.s. military and a massive federal law enforcement presence of the fbi, the u.s. marshals service. i mean, thousands of people and because d.c. has jurisdiction over the national guard, the department of defense which answers to donald trump has control and whether the national guard can come in and support the united states congress. so the law enforcement meltdown that i am hearing from both democrats, republicans, independence on this conversation is not just law-enforcement, it also is a question that has to go up to the commander-in-chief at that point which is donald trump. why did he not, in two hours,
callout the authority at his fingertips to protect the american people? that is a big question, and i hope we get to that this week. if not, we need a deep dive investigation so that this does not happen again. host: minnesota, democrat line. caller: i just have a statement. we the people put into office a man for four years to do the obligations of the people of this country. is there money. we need guidance to have it spent right. i think power is a broad word to use with what a president should be considered. he is a man of obligation, he is hired, he is paid for by the people of this country. he has an obligation to run the services correctly. he has an obligation to ask the people what they want. it is not his obligation to take that money and all the things
that we have and do what he wants with it. it is not a position of power. host: and how does this relate to the second impeachment trial if i may ask? caller: because donald trump has abused power. the word power. we have given him that status because we use that word all the time. he is a regular person after he is not president, and he should be affected by all the laws we have. when he was president, eve used the obligation that he had, and he should be impeached for the things he did that were contrary the obligations. host: would another avenue of abuse of power versus incitement be a stronger case against the president? guest: if you look at the actual charge, there is a couple of things going on. one is that they charge and the
failure to execute the law, which get to this conversation we are having about not protecting, not using law enforcement to protect the u.s. congress. i think it is a very strong charge, in part because the 14th amendment, section three of the 14th amendment pacifically has a statement in there that says if you have incited insurrection, you cannot hold office again. that was a post-civil war addition to keep former confederates out of the reformed government during reconstruction, so that there wasn't sort of an overthrow by upset confederates from the south who lost the civil war, that they would not come into office and then turn around and basically muck everything up again. we have not just in the federal criminal statutes, the state statutes, a ban on inciting insurrection, which is there notwithstanding the first
amendment, you cannot shout fire any crowded theater, you cannot incite insurrection, but we have an expressed statement that the framers did not want people who incite insurrection to be part of the government moving forward. i think it is a really strong charge from a matter of the united states constitution and again, the constitution is just a piece of paper. it doesn't grow arms and legs and enforce itself. i agree with the caller, it is a job description for government. we have expectations for our government. if we crossed the line in our jobs, there can be consequences. the same holds true for elected officials, and we the people need to hold them accountable at the ballot box and through our elected representatives through the impeachment process. host: i think it was during the bruce castor sound, a trial called brandenburg v. ohio. can you expand on that? guest: yes.
that involves a ku klux klan rally and whether inciting or making statements relating to potentially violent acts could be held accountable in a court of law. the question was, listen, we've got a first amendment right. if i want to speak, even if i say things that are upsetting to people, the first amendment protects my speech. in the supreme court said in that case, the court did ultimately uphold the speech, but said there is a line. there is a line to be drawn for regular people that if you cross it, you can be held accountable through a court of law notwithstanding the first amendment. and there's two parts to that. one is that you have to have intended to incite violence and intention is always difficult to show, but the second is that has to have been likely that your words would have that kind of reaction and again, as i mentioned with donald trump, it is not just what he said prior to the march to the capital, it
is once it was really clear that the mob was interested in violence, saying hang mike pence, he stoked that with additional tweets and called mike pence a coward, for example. that combination is like throwing kerosene on a fire. it was public that these people were planning on storming the capitol at that point. we had a lot of audio, visual, etc.. donald trump got on twitter and added to that. that is where i think we are going to hear democrats say the line was crossed. not just what he said before, but what he said as it was ongoing, knowing that these people were interested in violence. host: if you want to learn more about that case, there is a website to learn about the brandenburg case including how the justices at that time voted on it.
let's go to baltic, ohio. republican line. caller: i would like for you to read, verbatim, in the constitution, where it says that a public official who is impeached can't hold public office. guest: that is in the constitution, i believe it is in article two. there multiple parts of impeachment, so unfortunately i don't have that at my fingertips right now. but basically, the impeachment parts of the constitution say that the officer can be removed or banned from holding public office. that is my summary of it and i apologize that i don't have my paperwork with me right now because i am in the studio. but it is available online if you look at the constitution center in philadelphia.
that is a federally funded education site. they have a beautiful facility in the city of philadelphia and that is a great site to get a lot of information. in addition, i wrote a book called how to read the constitution, but i don't have it memorized. host: republican line, texas, go ahead. caller: i had an answer to a question about the book. the answer to the storming of the capital was who was to benefit in that situation? there was a worldwide evidence with audience to be presented and that got totally shut down. the question about her book, i was wondering if the first three statements have to be considered
before we consider anything in the constitution? that is the laws of nature, nature's guide, equality of creation, inalienable rights. and then the third thing about the scotus, when that case was presented, it is my understanding that there were five types of cases that the supreme court must be the first resort. in that lawsuit satisfied three of those. any one of those three should have been taken by the supreme court and none of them were. also, it is kind of a long thing, but i appreciate it. host: thanks. guest: i'm afraid i didn't quite catch the first question, maybe pedro, you did. as far as whether a value system, natural law, those kinds of things should come into play
in considering the constitution, 100% yes. this gets to the idea of a gray area. most of law is not black and white. i have students come in every semester who want the answer. i say if there was an answer, you can wikipedia the answer to the question. there would not be a reason to hire a lawyer because law is vague. law is ambiguous. pedro, remind me of the third question. host: now that i'm looking at my notes, i think i misplaced it, too. let me ask you the last question. what specifically are you looking for this week? guest: i'm looking for new information, frankly. i know we've seen the videos, people have made up their minds, but i would like to hear from people around the president as far as what his point of view was. i would like to hear from law enforcement officials as to why there was such a weak presence. i would like to hear from some
of the protesters and what they understood was the call in the moment. in particular, because some of these people are going to essentially lose their liberties and have severe consequences that are not going to be the case with donald trump because impeachment cannot take away somebody's freedom in terms of liberty. i would like to see that. i think we will see a hollywood-type video montage of what happened and it was horrific. it was traumatic for a lot of people. i think it is important we all take note of that and ask ourselves if that is ok going forward and i believe actually the last question was about the supreme court of the united states, did you have that? host: the ken paxton case. it satisfies three of the requirements. guest: thank you so much. yes, there is a provision in the u.s. constitution for filing lawsuits in the supreme court, particularly if you have two states that are fighting.
i don't take issue if whether it was ok to file a lawsuit, but you need two things to file lawsuits. just because you file a lawsuit does not mean you pass go. you need facts to support a good faith argument that there was fraud here and as i said, they had a lot of opportunity and did not come up with any facts. if they did so, they would have been in court. the second thing is what is called a cause of action. there is no cause of action for stink eye on the metro, you might get mad at somebody, but you can't sue them. there is no cause of action allowing the state of texas to cancel millions of votes in other states. no law gives texas the right to do that. no law gives any politician the right to just say you don't like those boats or whatever reason, we are going to cross them off like they don't exist. at the earlier caller said, this is government by the people. our votes are precious. and because there was no law that would have given that
relief, that is why the courts knocked it out. host: our guest, the author of "how to read the constitution and why." we thank you for your time as always. coming up in about a half hour, we will hear from the former press secretary for donald trump, sean spicer. he has a show called spicer & co., talking about the impeachment trial and other matters. until that point, we are going to revisit the question this morning about eligibility requirements for stimulus checks. do you think changes are needed? if you make under $30,000, (202) 748-8000. (202) 748-8001 if you make between $30,000 and $59,000. if you make between $60,000 and $100,000, (202) 748-8002. and if you make over 100,000, (202) 748-8003.
announcer: with the biden administration now leading the federal response to the coronavirus pandemic, follow the latest at c-span.org/ coronavirus. search coverage of news conferences as well as remarks from members of congress. use the interactive gallery of mastiff all the cases in the u.s. and worldwide. go to c-span.org/coronavirus. host: you are watching c-span, your unfiltered view of government. c-span was created by america's cable television companies in 1979. today, we are brought to you by these television companies who provide c-span to viewers as a public service. the senate impeachment trial of former president donald trump begins tuesday, with senators deciding if the former president should be convicted on incitement of insurrection.
watch our live coverage of the impeachment trial starting tuesday at one of 5 p.m. eastern on c-span two. c-span.org, or listen live on the free c-span radio app. if you miss any part of the proceedings, watch anytime on demand at c-span.org/impeachment. tonight on the communicators. ellen pao, former ceo of reddit and current ceo of project include. >> what we are seeing is that change of heart. that changing from the system where people get to work with people that look like them, that they are most comfortable with, that they are used to working with. they don't want to stop that. it doesn't matter what the numbers are, they will find a way to challenge them. it doesn't matter what the arguments are, they will find a way to challenge them. they really don't want to be forced to change or forced to admit that the system that they were so successful in was
actually rigged, they are not actually the product of a true a meritocracy, a true system where everybody had a fair chance. it is hard to internalize that. so i think we will continue to see pushback. that is one of the reasons why we need these rules. >> watch tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span 2. announcer: washington journal continues. host: congress has set to work on a plane for another stimulus round from the president. one $.9 trillion is the price tag, and one of the elements that $1400 direct payment. currently, debate in congress on whether the eligibility requires things to change from the previous ones used the $600 for the $1200 previous to that. if you just look at the headline, take a look at this topic and look at what is being i by congress.
he quotes the house majority leader saying that thresholds can be adjusted. he says i think that most people have raised the issue on both the senate and the house and frankly i think that is correct. i don't want to speculate on a figure or figures, but i think that may well be under consideration for adjustments. one of the question asked of the treasury secretary was if there was a figure in mind when he comes to eligibility. she made those comments on cnn yesterday. >> one of the main discussions right now is about who should receive the direct payments from the stimulus package. almost every senator agreed with the resolution that passed on thursday to say that upper income taxpayers should not get direct payments. they did not define what constitutes an upper income taxpayer, which may is why it was so easy for them to pass it. what do you think the cutoff should be? 50,000, 75,000? >> well, president biden is
certainly willing to work with members of congress to define what is fair, and he wouldn't want to see a household making over $200,000. but if you think about an elementary school teacher or a policeman making $60,000 per year, faced with children who were out of school when people who may have had to grow up in the labor force, taking care of them and many extra burdens, he thinks, and i certainly agree, that it is appropriate for people to get support. the exact details of how it should be details of how it should be targeted are to be determined. struggling middle-class families need help as well. >> you think higher than 50,000 for individuals, but you are not
willing to commit to 75,000? dr. yellen: i think the details can be worked out and the president is willing to work with congress to find good structure for these payments. host: if you want to give us your thoughts on if the eligibility requirements should change. if you make under $30,000, (202) 748-8000. (202) 748-8001 if you make between $30,000 and $59,000. if you make between $60,000 and $100,000 give us a call at (202) 748-8002. if you make over $100,000, call us at (202) 748-8003, or text us. from gainesville, new york on the republican line. caller: i was curious because this is supposed to help people who took a big hit from covid. whenever the amount is is going by the 2019 income.
a lot of people who lost a lot of money and have a high burden to keep up their lifestyle, they should be getting checks as well. why don't they wait until 2020 taxes come in? host: mike is in gettysburg, pennsylvania. go ahead. caller: like i told the lady who answered, i don't know how they can put a rate on somebody who lives in the country versus somebody who lives in the city. i almost agree with a lot of things the lady said. how about all the people losing their business and need the money now? it's all subjective, and it should be applied for and reviewed. i'm not going to discount people who had a lot of money in the past in taxes, because again you live within your means and if
you happen to be one of those rich people, i hope that you have money stored away in the bank to be able to survive with. where i live in gettysburg, pennsylvania is no comparison to where i lived outside of washington, d.c. in the past. the cost is just not the same. how can they have one thing for all? host: that is mike in pennsylvania. let's go to the neighboring state of delaware, crystal in wilmington. caller: good morning, how are you, i wish i could have got through on the other segment, but i couldn't. in reference to the eligibility requirements, i received a check and in actuality i don't think i should have. i don't think i should have.
my wage was not decreased. i didn't lose anything because of the pandemic, i am on disability. only those people that actually have losses, when people lose their job and are applying for unemployment, that is what they are getting, that is what they are supposed to get. the people that are in business that are not able to open their business, those are people who need a stimulus and need some help. the people who cannot get a job because of this situation and were not working so they cannot file for unemployment. those are the individuals that need a stimulus. people whose life has not changed and just because they make a low wage they are supposed to get funds it's kind of insane to me. host: let's go to chris from oak
park, illinois. caller: my wife and i have over $100,000 a year in retirement and wages and we certainly feel that with grants or the payments to individuals they should be limited to those directly affected by the virus with their work and with people of lower income. i'm sticking with that. host: did you receive something before and you felt like you didn't need it? caller: didn't receive anything, didn't want anything. host: mary is from hillman, michigan. hello. caller: hello there. i agree with the delaware caller that some people that refuse to work, my sister has these
companies for home health care and they are getting more on unemployment than they got making wages with her. my income has not changed because i am on a widows pension. i have not received any of the stimulus checks. i have no problem with that. my mom is 95. she doesn't need the stimulus checks and she gets them, which is crazy. that's all i wanted to say. host: from quantico, maryland, lonnie go ahead. quantico, maryland or virginia? caller: maryland. host: go ahead. you are on, go ahead. caller: i have a question or comment to make. i have not heard anything about the money that's not coming out of the government's coffers, all
the elderly people that have passed away from corona, no social security checks going out, all the nursing homes and medicaid, medicare, this is going to be quite a statement for the government. >> as far as the second round should eligibility be changed? caller: i think as far as stimulus goes it should be 100,000, $50,000 a couple. $50,000 in individual and $100,000 per couple. host: talking about the overall effects of what the biden administration is trying to do. senator pat toomey of pennsylvania made the case for
or against the need for another package. >> you talk about how the economy has improved, and the economy has improved. the u.s. is down almost 10 million jobs since the pandemic began. job growth is falling. we just got the jobs report, only 49,000 jobs added in january. thousands of americans taking themselves out of looking for jobs. the cbo says it will take until 2024 to fully recover without sizable relief. how do you explain your opposition given those facts about millions of struggling americans? senator toomey: we have allocated money for these purposes. the cbo is projecting that we will have almost 5% growth next year if we don't do an additional bill. we have tens of billions of dollars that have not made it out the door yet because the ink is barely dry on the last bill.
what this is is it's clear and in addition to the hard left executive orders, it's clear from my point of view that while president biden has given great speeches about unity he is governing from the hard left. this is a list of liberal democrat spending, don't let a crisis go to waste. people remember that we had an economic crisis. load up as much spending as possible. how do you know that? 10 republican senators marched to the white house and offered to do another bill. they have put over $600 billion on the table they are willing to vote for and willing to negotiate for more. that's enough to pass it in the senate and democrats are saying it's not enough. they have passed legislation that will allow them to do a multitrillion dollar bill with partisan votes. >> you oppose that $600 billion
proposal from the 10 republican senators? host: let's hear from mark in illinois, and utica. caller: good morning. i wanted to call and say i agree in moral principle with one a lot of the people are saying in terms of being an essential worker. i have not really been harmed by this economically. we have to acknowledge that if you read on economics the stimulus effects for those business owners for some of these people, if we put more money into the economy it would be better because it was going to extend spendable income for people that will go out and spend money as things start to open up. they say we have a lot of pent-up demand that is going to happen when this breaks loose. in the meantime i think that would be a better prescription
if we can get over some moral principle as people seem to be -- i feel that way but i also know that i will spend the extra money in the economy. one of my coworkers got it and he felt the same way as many collars and he donated his check to a food pantry. that would be my comment. host: that his mark in illinois. a color from pennsylvania, hello. caller: hello? good morning. my take with the stimulus, there are so many people, including myself, that have suffered from this pandemic. they are squabbling over $1400
which is hardly enough to fix what this situation has done for most of us. we have gas prices rising, when you go to the supermarkets what used to be two dollars is $4.50. you have your essentials like your gas and so on. all of our essential bills are more than average that the stimulus checks that they are fighting over for the people, i also help take care of my elderly mother who turned 87 yesterday and her social security check does not cover her copayment, it does not cover her rent. there are families like myself that struggle. my daughter had to drop out of
college. for the ones that are making the money, they don't see the other families that don't have what they have. the money belongs to the people. i've worked for many years to pay into a system that does not return fairly, so how is the stimulus $1400? $600 is a joke. in other countries like canada they are giving people more money to survive in america. we are supposed to be the super country. host: wayne from alexandria, virginia. lane, are you in alexandria? go ahead. caller: that's me. i kind of agree with what a lot of callers just said, that this should be more of a focused and
targeted effort. i have two suggestions. one is that the funds could have gone straight to the unemployment insistent programs for the states. you could use the fema individual assistance program and run the money through there. they have experts that deal with this all the time. host: how are you familiar with those programs? caller: the state unemployment assistance program, i've had to use that in the past when i was laid off or furloughed from a job. also for a short time i used it until i went back to work a month or two later. in the fema individual assistance program if you go to the fema website you can get a lot of information there. responding to national disasters before and that is a great program, a great group of professionals who try to help
the community in a very targeted way. it's just for those who need it, not everyone. host: that is lane in alexandria, virginia. part of the overall package being debated in congress would include 350 billion dollars for state and local governments. a story in the wall street journal taking a look at state revenues and what is happening with their budgets during covid. that revenue drop, -- if you want to go to the wall street journal you can read about that. this playing out there when it comes to who is eligible for the $1400 direct stimulus payments. that's the conversation we are having. linda from st. louis, missouri. caller: yes, i don't understand why they are in such a big squabble about $1400, when $1400 is not enough for anyone
suffering. you see these long lines of people at food banks and it doesn't matter. senator toomey or whatever his name is, they have been getting paid since obama has been in office and they have not done anything or passed any good bills. we pay them and their salaries have not changed. the lady who called in about her sister with home health care, there isn't any money. i have neighbors that do that work. when they got there stimulus i was happy to see they were able to get stuff delivered to their homes whether it was through walmart or whatever. i've never seen that because they didn't have extra money. they bought a new car. people need things. for our government to help us, there is nothing wrong with that. they did all the tax cuts and for these rich people, then when it comes to helping people they don't want to do anything, that is going to break the bank when
they have already broken the bank. they never said no to donald trump. now they want to do everything bipartisan. i think fred is in the biden needs to do what is best for him and what is best for their country and for the people. people that are dying and they are not getting any medicines. there are people with covid that would probably not be out of hand the way they are now if he had not done something. there is too much suffering out there and i hate to say this is america. host: that is linda from st. louis, missouri. this is mike from maryland. caller: i think people ought to think about this senate thing in the different way. [indiscernible] into the people's money number one. number two, especially speaking here in the d.c. area, a $30,000 cap or $50,000 cap is very small. my 16-year-old kid makes $30,000
a year. that should be targeted. kids that work in fast food and these low-paying jobs -- if they work for the government they have a sliding scale depending on where you are in the country. -- in florida $30,000 is a lot different than in the d.c. area. host: that's mike from maryland joining us in this conversation. we appreciate all of you who participated in the conversation. we welcome to the program sean spicer, former white house press secretary and the host of a show on newsmax. thank you for joining us. sean: good morning. host: how do you approach being
a former member of the administration is taking place this week with the second impeachment trial? sean: i have a show every night at newsmax, so i look at it differently, we have been covering it for a while and will cover it tonight. i look at it from the standpoint of, what are people asking, what are the questions they have, and how can we break it down during that one hour we have every night? host: what are the questions and how do you answer them? sean: i get to ask the questions instead of answering. i inject my own opinion. i think there are a lot of questions in particular with respect to a former president. the constitution is clear about the purpose of impeachment being for removal of office. if someone is no longer in office then you have to question what the purpose of the proceedings themselves is. tonight we will have alan dershowitz on the show and try
to break it down from a constitutional perspective. a lot of times we get lost in political arguments and forget to step back and say the constitution is clear about what the purpose of these things are and the procedures by which they will be held. we get to have a discussion on the show about what the political arguments are and what the constitutional arguments are. the fun part is that you get to look at a lot of the questions that you are getting every day on washington journal and a lot of times that's what i will say. i am hearing a lot about this, can you break it down for people. it's more of that discussion between other experts political and legal to have a better understanding of issues and politics. host: the question is did the president incite the crowd on january 6, what is your take? sean: i think that is not
entirely true in the sense that that is not necessarily the question. the fundamental question is, can you impeach somebody who is no longer in office. the second question is, if so, are those impeachable offenses? are they high crimes and misdemeanors? you have to answer the first question first, are the proceedings relevant for someone who is no longer in office. the constitution clearly says shall be removed from office. if you are no longer in office what is the remedy? host: we will have our conversation with our guest going forward and if you want to ask our guest questions about his thoughts on impeachment, (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can text your thoughts at (202) 748-8003. you have heard several legal scholars say there is a question
within the constitution on whether this is capable for the senate to even start this trial. how would you respond to those? sean: it's interesting. i have heard those arguments from leaguers -- legal scholars that argue that you can do it. there's an interesting argument on their behalf. the constitution says very clearly in article two section four that the officeholder shall be removed from office, that's the exact phrasing, that's the remedy. the question is, if the officeholder is no longer in office then you have to question. i have read some of the briefings and articles and summations that these scholars claim that you can go through the motions. i have yet to have that discussion, because i don't get how you can make the case. we have a system of criminal
justice in this country so that if you are guilty of a crime or suspected of a crime you go through that civil process by which if you feel you have been wronged by somebody you can soothe them for civil damages like money or what have you. then we have impeachment which is a political means of justice so you can remove and officeholder who you feel or someone feels has broken a law or committed high crimes and misdemeanors or treason or all these other things the constitution enumerates. impeachment is a political form of justice. if the president is guilty of criminal acts this is not the appropriate forum to discuss, because there is no other remedy. you cannot impeach somebody and send them to jail or impose a civil fine of $1 million or $100. those are other forms of proceedings. the question is, if the former president was guilty of something this is not
the forum to judge him in. host: i suspect you have looked through the house impeachment managers pretrial motion. as far as the incitement part they write this, those who came to the rally looking for a signal from their president found it in his remarks. rather than calm the crowd or promise to carry on the fight for years to come the overwhelming thrust of the remarks delivered to an armed and angry crowd known to be prepared for violence on his behalf was a militaristic demand that they minus fight the stop at the capitol at the moment. you see statements as far as the evidence that will be brought forth what goes through your mind? as someone who used to work for donald trump? sean: it's interesting because you can cherry pick comments. donald trump said to go to the capital and protest. he talks about doing this. you cover this on c-span all the time, the demonstrations, the protests, the rallies that occurred in washington, d.c. in
a pre-covid world if not weekly or multiple times a week some group gathers on the capitol steps on the national mall and other places in washington, d.c. and supreme court steps to highlight an issue or seek redress from the government. this happens regularly. the question is if you can find these comments and make one case or another. there is clearly in the impeachment managers brief they are making the case that while you look at these elements of the president's speech they point to ask. his defenders will point to parts of his speech where he told them to make their voices heard and protest at the capital which is a time-honored tradition in america. i think either side can cherry pick a speech and pick out things they like. the thing that is interesting to me and the president's -- donald trump pasta fenders, rand paul
brought it up. and you look at the comments from the last cycle that congresswoman maxine waters made where she said you get in the face of trump officials, when you see them make a crowd. when you look at eric holder who said when we go -- those are actions that did discuss violence. i question whether or not the democrat impeachment managers that will make this case are not going to be careful that some words of their own colleagues don't get thrown back into their faces. if you are going to say the president is guilty for telling people to do this, what do you say to your colleagues who incited violence and told people to get in people's faces. it's a very interesting path they are going down, because it will set an interesting precedent for what is permissible in terms of free speech. host: sean spicer of the trump
administration and a host on news masks. you can ask him questions. our first call from eleanor in bedford, massachusetts on the republican line. you are on will sean spicer. caller: good morning. i am trying to ask a question that is probably for years with all this horror going on. when i was a little girl i was told the devil made me do it. then trump made me do it. i wonder who the terrible behavior of the american people will blame next. it was the out -- i'm shocked, i'm ashamed, i'm ashamed that they did it and nobody stopped them. nobody stopped them from doing that. i can imagine -- i can't imagine the horror he and his family are suffering. host: eleanor from massachusetts.
sean: there is no question when you look at the media coverage of donald trump and how we have seen the first three weeks of the biden administration is different. the press corps is in line and there is a vitriolic feeling among members of the press corps towards donald trump. this is something that on the right we have dealt with forever and it got amplified to a degree i had never witnessed by donald trump. host: from ricky in michigan, on the democrats line. go ahead. caller: how are you doing. mr. spicer, i watched donald trump ever since he was elected.
even when the bus thing that happened, i heard the things that he said. just like he incited that crowd to go down to the capital and he told them that he will be bound there and he jumped on his -- jumped on his helicopter and went back to the white house and was watching it. you want to talk about black lives matter, at least nobody got killed in black lives matter. you know something, qanon, white nationalists, i heard trump say out of his own mouth, so how are you going to say "he's not getting the right coverage" when fox news was saying everything he was saying. host: ricky, we will let our guest respond. sean: i'm sorry, my audio must
have dropped out. ricky, i'm sorry, i did not hear what you said aside from the first part when you said that you have been paying attention donald trump. host: he mentioned various statements by donald trump over the years and related to what he said on january 6 as far as this was a pattern happening up until january 6. as far as the president starting what happened on january 6. sean: the president's comments were a pattern? host: he made a statement that he has heard donald trump make similar statements over the years, relating it to what he said on january 6. is there a pattern there of this type of speech that donald trump expressed? are you there? can you hear us, mr. spicer? we will see what we can arrange as far as the audio issue on that side.
we will try one more time, mr. spicer, are you there? [no audio] mr. spicer, can you hear us? sean: i can hear you now. host: let's go to oakdale, new york. david, go ahead. caller: mr. spicer, i watch your show on the -- all the time and i like it a lot. i wish you would get a few more people like rush limbaugh or glenn beck. i believe that donald trump has been tormented by the democrat party. i don't think they had evidence on the first impeachment. they had transcripts, everything was given to them. there was no impeachment in the senate. adam schiff and jerry nadler blewitt because adam schiff
never testified. i don't believe donald trump incited a riot by saying they should peacefully march down to the capital. i believe that when they didn't allow the police to stop black lives matter, a lot of the people that owned those businesses were horrified financially, scared of seeing all these people, and the police were told to stand down. host: ok, thanks. sean: a lot to break down. thank you for watching the show. i appreciate it. i would love to get rush limbaugh on, he is dealing with some personal and health issues. i appreciate you watching.
democrats made it clear on the day donald trump was inaugurated they were going to impeach him. they were searching for a reason to impeach him. if you look at the process of the second impeachment, there was a seven hour floor discussion in the house of representatives. there were no hearings or witnesses, which was unprecedented. they did it in seven hours. for those folks who watch washington journal and c-span regularly, you know washington does not do anything in a day. the idea that they jammed this through without a hearing or any witnesses shows this was not a serious process. they know what they were doing. they talked about how important the impeachment was because donald trump needed to get out of office so quick. nancy pelosi did not send the articles to the senate.
the process is political, impeachment is a political process. the idea that they had these altruistic motives and care deeply about the nation, it was clearly about their hatred of president trump and their vindictiveness against president trump. you had a cooperative media that played into it and allowed all of the indiscretions in terms of not following the president and not allowing witnesses or any kind of hearing to occur in the judiciary committee in the house. they allow that to be overlooked because it fit into the greater good the media saw going after president trump. when trump and his allies call this a sham it's for their reasons. it was held until the timing was somewhat agreeable with president biden, because they wanted to enact political revenge. regardless of where you sit on the spectrum in terms of liking donald trump or not you should
be concerned about the process in the senate. this is creating a precedent where the other party can impeach a person they don't like on the others and and jam it through without due process. if that does not concern you in a few years when republicans turn it on the democrats and they will you can't complain. we saw this back in the 80's with how bourque was treated when he was nominated for the supreme court. republican started to enact revenge. the democrat senate leader harry reid change the filibuster rule for certain nominees in the senate. then republicans use the same system to jam through supreme court justices. when you change the system, when you change the precedent generally it comes back to bite
you in the future. democrats are going to regret how they have used this process. host: the previous caller talked about a pattern of speech from the president leading up to january 6, parallels between what he said on the sixth and things he said over the years. is that a fair case? sean: sure. you can always look at somebody's speech and comments and say, did they create pattern , where they inappropriate? of course. there is a difference between doing that and saying that was not helpful or good and whether it had a direct correlation on the events that occurred. there is a difference between telling people to commit an act, and when you read through the brief the impeachment managers in the house are bringing to the senate they make it very clear that what occurred on the mall
that day from the president's -- from trump speech to what happened in the capital and when you look at the forensic data that occurred in terms of one people breach the capital, donald trump was speaking. if that is their case it doesn't seem to add up. if you want to make the case that over the course of three to six months he led to something, that is more of a challenging case to make. when you take what the caller from michigan said and the gentleman who just spoke, you can make a case that the democrats failure to call out violence with the rioting and looting that occurred over the summer is also bad behavior that should face punishment. when you walked through downtown in d.c. or many major cities in the u.s. and see that instruction of violence that occurred and the lack of outrage
that was coming from the left, it seems to me that if you go down a path where you talk about what somebody did or did not say you are creating a dangerous precedent. host: from california on the democrats line, stephanie. caller: good morning, c-span. so much to unpack. donald trump did say we are going to go violently to take back the capital, and you have to fight like hell, because you are going to lose your country if you don't fight like hell. the media did not show the entire tape and they stopped before he said those words, but he did say those words. i'm sure it will be shown during the impeachment hearing. donald trump has abused his power and should have been impeached in the first hearing. robert mueller being a republican, he said he couldn't
do it. we can't go back and forth. trying to equate the insurrection, trying to take the government over with people who are marching for their civil-rights is plain old idiotic. just tell the truth about what is happening. host: we will let him respond to the questions. go ahead. sean: i think that marching for your civil-rights is something that is a time-honored tradition in this country and that is very welcome. there's a big difference between marching for civil rights and marching to stand up for other things that take place in our capital and around the country all the time are the beauty of america, they are protected under the first amendment and should be celebrated. there's a difference between that and anything that crosses the line in terms of violence, looting, destruction of
property. i don't condone any of that. i've said from day one that violence is never acceptable. i don't think anybody should ever cross the line when you are trying to express your concerns, your grievances and set i would never under any circumstances condone any behavior that crosses the line into looting, destruction of property, violence of any sort. the one comment that you did make, robert mueller, i don't think democrats thought -- to suggest that somehow because he has worked for a republican i think democrats were pleased with robert mueller during his selection as he did his work in the government. they spent millions of dollars going after donald trump and came up empty-handed. to claim that it was covered up because mueller was a republican
does not fit the narrative. host: we have a viewer off of to better who asks "was the president required to hold the invasion of the capital?" sean: was he required -- once that situation got out of hand the more that the president could have done at the time to make it very clear that if you are a trump supporter this is not acceptable. once that breach occurred at the capital i think every single possible person that had a voice should and could have continued to call out any of that behavior. could he have done more? sure. host: let's go to stacey in minnesota on the republican line. caller: i have a twofold. i'm a republican that believes that this impeachment is very constitutional due to the fact that they impeached him while he was in office for something he
did in office, and like the past caller said, this is a build up over four years of the incitement. now, he did this, he was impeached while he was in office , it was mitch mcconnell that refused to bring it to the floor come of that's why it was delayed. regardless of what the outcome will be, if donald trump is put back in the position to be able to run again we will continue to lose our stance in the world and this country will be totally divided on democracy and that is what this is about. he tried to interrupt the democratic democracy of this country. the other aspect, spicer, you keep saying that this will set an unprecedented and bite them in the but.
this is going to set a precedent that no matter who is in office if you are messing up, if you are fighting with our democracy, if you are interrupting the people's choice, then you face impeachment. host: thank you, caller. sean: first of all, that's just not true with respect to the articles of impeachment being sent to the senate. nancy pelosi held onto those, that's a fact. there is video of her and other folks walking them over to the senate not too long ago. it was clearly not within days of passing, they held them for a while. that is not true. secondly, my point is just to say if the democrats go down this path, i would bet that we will have it come back and bite
them when a republican house and/or senate has a president of the opposite party and they utilize it as a political tool. the president was impeached in the house while he was -- donald trump was impeached in the house while he was in office. the difference with respect to the senate is this is when you would get convicted with the penalty being removal from office. that's the difference. who knows what would've happened had nancy pelosi sent articles of impeachment, what leader mcconnell would have done. we don't know because she chose not to do that. host: from our democrats line, germantown, maryland, sharon. caller: a couple of commentary mr. spicer, you have polished your lies. you lied from the get-go and lied through your little speaking tour, all of you lied
about it. your man doesn't even know what a constitution is, so why don't you stop that crap? are you still getting $15,000 a month and are you still under the nda? you are a disgrace. host: going to stop you there. sean: [laughter] i think she had a lot of coffee. host: you can respond if you wish. sean: i don't know what to respond to. i am doing just great, thank you for asking. i appreciate you saying i'm doing a better job. host: what's it like to work for a conservative outlet like yours after january sixth? did things change? six the echo -- for newsmax and one american
news are things changing as far as how they are perceived and do you think you are being picked on? sean: we are doing fantastic, the ratings have gone through the roof. we have more people tuning into newsmax and on cable. the beauty of newsmax is that we are on almost every cable outlet . traditional cable viewers can watch us. if you are a cable cut or you can go to youtube and watch the newsmax channel or download our app. if you have the internet you can watch newsmax and we are seeing web traffic go crazy. when i look at the criticism that comes from places like cnn it's almost like a badge of honor. we know that we are continuing to build up market share and as the color from michigan mentioned, we provide an outlet for people to come and listen to
a great discussion about what is happening in politics that they are probably not getting on places like cnn and msnbc. people have no problem with msnbc or the left-wing views on cnn. when something like newsmax lies -- threatens the media establishment that's a big problem for them. i love doing the show and i love having guests. the interesting thing in terms of being describe the way you mention is that we have had democrats on the show. it's a great discussion every night at 6:00. for people who want to criticize the show or the network i would encourage them to tune in and take a look. if you have a problem let me know. i think every night we break down issues facing washington in a straightforward and insightful day. host: he wrote this just after
the events of january 6. "we reached this precipice because millions of americans have had a fire hose of falsehoods plastered into their brain for months on end, they believe that the election has been stolen and because they have been told that by donald trump and online provocateurs and political entrepreneurs have cultivated and reinforced conspiracy theories about the election and god knows what else." what reaction would you have the echo -- to that? sean: it's interesting because there are a lot of concerns about elections. those that change their rules without procedure being followed like a court making a decision to extend voting time. we saw a story come out in time magazine friday about the coordination that occurred between labor unions and other left-wing groups to ensure that
all of this could occur. part of the problem is people like that reporter who dismissed the concerns people have about the legitimacy of why the voting rules were changed in the lead up to the election without going through the normal process, without going through state legislatures. it's funny to me these people on the left tend to dismiss all the folks on the right as having illegitimate views and concerns about how government is operating. i think that's why you are seeing the growth and the viewership of places like newsmax rise because people are tired of a left-wing media trying to tell them what to think. it's not just what they cover but it's what they don't cover. host: have you heard the criticism about networks like years and that it's the
information you provide that led up to january 60 echo what is the response? sean: i have not heard that line. i have heard a lot of critique about the network from places like cnn or msnbc. it is left-leaning organizations that i think are threatened by the rise of places like newsmax that give people an opportunity to discuss issues that won't get hurt on other outlets. there is a shut out and when you look at who covers what and what they don't cover and what voices they bring to prominence it's amazing to me. when you see the growth of a channel, an organization like newsmax, it's not just our broadcast, but what we do online. that growth is because these outlets are distrusted. look at the pew research poll of
trust in the media, it to plummet. these folks are trying to figure out what is going on in america and continue to talk to each other and dismiss voices that might be on the right. this mainstream media cabal mainly in washington, d.c., l.a., and new york city got the 2016 election wrong and instead of trying to figure out the concerns around the country they double down going into the next election. we have a very divided nation and you have a media that is resting on the left and not acknowledging the right. host: on our independent line from new york, kareem. caller: good morning. i take issue with mr. spicer's representation of the media. you are the very person who stood there, i believe it was the first press conference for
donald trump who lied about the crowd size. that set the tone for the rest of his presidency. donald trump's presidency -- don't get me wrong, the media does a lot wrong, but donald trump's presidency is one of the major reasons there is no trust in media. you lied to the media and try to make those lies into reality by constantly putting them into people's heads. these are verifiable, provable lies. this is what the trump presidency did to the country and there is a lot of blame to be taken and you are a big part of that problem. caller: i would say i -- sean: i have made mistakes, i've been open and honest about the mistakes i made. i wrote an entire book that you are free to read or download that talks about my first day in particular and other mistakes i made. i will own up to the things i screwed up. one of the things i tell people
all the time is, as a person and a professional when you make mistakes you hopefully grow by learning what you did wrong and trying to do better next time. to turn around and to blame the media's low approval on the trump presidency dismisses the problems that occurred. i have been doing this for 25 years in terms of working with the media. they have been left-leaning, liberal and dismissive of the right for decades. this is not a new phenomenon. host: from evansville, indiana on the republican line, this is keith. caller: good morning. my comment is that whenever nancy pelosi tore up the state of the union address i think that started the divisiveness between our government officials and then turned around and called our sitting president a traitor.
i don't care who is the president, you stand behind whoever the people elected. the laws with passing all them ballots out and changing the rules, that has people mad and they need to figure out before this new election what the rules are going to be and stick to them or this is going to be bad. that is just what i hear from talking to people around my town , that they need to set the rules and follow them. sean: there are two issues. one is, you can look back, and this is the problem. you can look back and talk about the comments that harry reid made about george bush or other nominees on the republican side. you can talk about nancy pelosi ripping up a piece of paper, and the media as she walked out of the chamber not making a big
deal out of it. i think it was rude. when you look at the tit for tat you can go back pretty far in our country to realize that this divisiveness has been going on for a while. this is continuing to escalate and be amplified. the question is when and how does it stop or do we go forward trying to do this? so far i don't see any signs aside from the president saying unity. at some point the action has to mirror the words. i don't see that happening anytime soon unfortunately. host: go ahead. sean: i'm done. host: there was a story earlier this month about mike lindell who was on the newsmax program, he brought up voter fraud issues and an anchor walked across
the -- walked off of the set. there are lawsuits as far as dominion. does this concern you in terms of how your network operates? sean: as far as how my network operates? the network is clear that when issues of voter fraud get brought up newsmax will make it clear that newsmax has not seen any evidence of that. no evidence of voter fraud and states its position clearly on air as was done in that instance. host: mary in willard, ohio on the republican line. caller: yes, hello, thank you for taking my call. commenting on the impeachment trial and things going forward. i was a voter in 2016, first time in my life i ever voted. i also voted in 2020. i voted for trump, i did it because of the things he has done for the country. not putting anyone else down.
in my judgment of the political standpoint of it, i believe that there is going to be, especially in this administration, is going to be people who can and those who cannot. they are going to do what they want and be allowed to get by with it and others are not. for them impeaching trump, i don't think there was an insurrection at all. he campaigned talking about what he could not do for the country. i don't believe his words were telling anyone to go to the capital and kill anybody or tear up anything. i also think that if we take a
look at it all, and i am not putting biden down, but all the executive orders he has already proposed, he is already -- should he be impeached? host: we will let our guest respond. sean: with respect to what she said at the end, there was an interview on abc when then vice president biden was a candidate talking about how the trump executive orders made him appear as a dictator and talking about the fact that you have to work through congress to change the laws. we have seen over 40 executive orders and actions at the gate. it's interesting that you see talk of doing one thing during the campaign then doing another. he gets a pass because he is pushing back against trump and people like what he is doing. host: from indiana, you are on
with our guests. caller: thank you, c-span. hi, sean. i have a lot of things -- you have allied from the beginning for trump, that's why you lied. you and, there are 199 congressman that are going to probably let him get away with this like they did the last time . they had no oversight. when can they do something with this president. they keep saying they can't do anything because he is the president right now, donald trump. they say they can't impeach him now because he is not the president, and they said before he couldn't be impeached when he
was the president, so what the hell? host: thank you for the call, mr. spicer, go ahead. sean: they did impeach him in the house. this is going over to the senate where he would face removal from office. i don't think she understands the process that well. host: let me ask this, because you held the job what do you think of the current performance of jen psaki? sean: i think she is doing a great job. when i was coming in to be press secretary and run the communications team for the trump white house, she and her team were gracious and kind. my concern is more with how the media is dealing -- raising issues or not. that first big press conference they did not talk about immigration or the keystone pipeline. it's what they did not talk about and the kid gloves.
i have a lot of respect for jen. i know how difficult that job is. i appreciate her service to the country and my issue is more with how the media is conducting themselves then her and her team and i wish her well. host: have you had any conversations with president biden recently echo -- with donald trump recently ? sean: i have not spoken to donald trump in a few weeks. host: this is from vicksburg, indiana on the independent line. go ahead with your question or comment. caller: i just want to remind mr. spicer who was talking about the rule change to voting in pennsylvania that he said they should have been done under normal late -- the situation was far from
normal with covid, and i think that they had to move the way they did just so people could vote. thank you. sean: respectfully, i would argue that our country has faced challenges in the past, wars and pandemics. that is just not how the country works. you don't get to say because situations are adverse we can change the rules on how to vote and not go through the state legislative process. that is not how our system of government is meant to work. i don't think you can change it because the circumstances are not the best. when you look at dr. fauci who said that voting in person under the proper precautions of social distancing and mask wearing would have been fine it undermines the case. the bottom line is there was time for pennsylvania if they wanted to go through the proper systems. they did not end a judge changed when ballots can be cast and the
means by which they could do it. that is not how the system is supposed to work. if you side with that then you should be able to understand as i keep referring to over and over, donald trump said what circumstances and laws can you change going forward? if you can say that a state court can change a rule because of a global pandemic then you are going to see a court start to change a lot of laws depending on the circumstances they think are appropriate. i don't like that system of government. we have a circumstances they think are appropriate. host: sean spicer, the host of "spicer and company" on newsmax. thank you for your time. guest: you bet. host: that is it. another edition of our program
tomorrow morning. we will see you then. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2021] ♪ >> the white house is hosting a couple of briefings. we will have an update on the vaccine task force. in that new knees and, the white house press or to carry jen psaki -- at noon eastern, white house press secretary jen psaki will answer reporter questions. you can watch live online or listen on the free c-span radio app.
>> the senate returns at 3 p.m. eastern to consider the nomination of dennis make donna. and the impeachment trial for president trump gets underway on tuesday. the house is not in this week. committees will work on the $1.9 trillion covid relief veal in the house will bring that to the floor when they return for vote on february 22. watch the house live on c-span, the senate live on c-span2. >> the senate impeachment trial of former president donald trump begins on tuesday with senators deciding on whether the former president should be convicted on inciting insurrection. what's on c-span two, c-span.org, or listen on the
free c-span radio app. if you miss any part of the proceeding, watch any time at c-span.org/impeachment. >> next, a forum on former president trump's role and influence in the republican party following his election defeat. a recent survey of people who voted for him suggest that they feel under threat. analysts review what it means for the future of the republican party. the american enterprise institute hosted the event. karlyn: good afternoon, i am karlyn bowman, and i would like to welcome all of you to today's event called "donald trump and the future of the gop." henry olson, a former colleague and now a senior fellow at the ethics and public policy center has long been one of the nation's most student observers of the republican party.