tv Washington Journal Rep. Ro Khanna CSPAN September 24, 2019 2:50pm-3:18pm EDT
>> we are waiting now for democratic presidential candidate joe biden to give a statement on that whistleblower complaint about the president. the complaint stemming from a phone conversation that president trump had earlier this year with the leader of ukraine. that phone call included talk about the former vice president and his son. we will have live coverage of that comment from joe biden when it happens here on cspan3 until then a discussion from the baxter journal. >> rhokhannna a member of of the house oversight committee working on its own investigation of president trump and ukraine. we're hearing reports that nancy pelosi has called a meeting of the caucus at 4:00 p.m. today. >> yes. >> to discuss the issue of impeachment. what will you say if you have a chance to talk. >> we'll have a full attendance for the caucus meeting. it's a serious issue. i will talk about our founders.
ahmat in federalist 68 talks about foreign interference being the largest threat to our republic. and our our founders were concerned about interference from britain and france. this isn't a partisan issue. this is about making sure we stand up for our constitutional republic and say it is wrong for any elected official, certainly the president of the united states to even get close to the line of seeking foreign assistance. >> where do you think the caucus is right now on a morning when we see seven democratic freshman with an op ed in "washington post" about this issue of impeachment, these seven members of the military in intelligence communities before they came to congress, where do you think the caucus line is right now? >> i saw that late last night, op ed appear said that's a game changer. niece are extraordinary members of congress. they have the most credentials when it comes to national security or military issues. they are -- many in districts
that trump carried. for them to come out and say this justifies an impeachment inquiry really has change the tenor in our caucus. you had a number of progressives like me calling for inquiry. now you have moderates and people on front line districts calling for it. i can't think of something more significant than that op ed. >> significant enough to move the speaker to pursue impeachment investigations? >> i would be surprised if she does it official -- doesn't officially endorse impeachment investigations at this point. obviously you have to ask her. but given the breadth of support for that in the caucus that would be my expectation. and, of course, impeachment investigations are already proceeding. jerry nadler has started the investigations. my sense is you may the get a more formal statement from the leadership. >> a lot of focus last week and this week as well especially
with the dni acting director coming before the intelligence committee on thursday about the ukraine phone call. but the house oversight committee which you serve on is working an investigation in that realm. reminders what that is, where it stands. >> what we did is go over the process. here is the process. when you have a whistleblower who makes a complaint to the inspector general, the inspector general needs to determine whether it is urgent and serious. in this case the inspector general did that. and then the inspector general has an obligation to refer it to the agency head. in this case the director of national intelligence. now, under the law the director of national intelligence has to provide that complaint to congress within seven days. since 2010, since the statute was set up, every time there has been a whistleblower complaint congress has gotten the complaint, even frankly in case that is weren't urgent. in this case you have the
director of national intelligence who in blatant disregard for the statute, in blatant disregard for the inspector general's findings that this was urgent, refused to give that to congress. and what was asking the inspector general is, has this ever happened before? and he said no. and i said, is this normal? he said, no. the statute requires the complaint to come to congress zboo congressman. rho, chap khanna. join in the conversation. republicans 202-78-8800. independent. 8002. we talked about the caucus meeting this morning. if impeachment proceeds, what does it accomplish if republican senators choose to line up behind president trump? >> well, first of all it's the constitutional duty for every member of the house and senate to stand up for the principles
of our founders. it exposes what is going on and the corruption and puts every member of congress and senator on record to say, do you believe that foreign interference is acceptable in our democracy? do you support what ahmat wrote in federalist 68? do you share the constitutional concerns of george washington, thomas jefferson, john adams, that the biggest threat to american democracy is foreign powers? we don't think about it as much anymore because we are the most powerful country in the world. but when we weren't this was the preoccupation of our founders, the central concern. that's why the grounds for impeachment originally were treason and bribery. their concerned was could a fledgling republic survive without zbloorchs denver cole, caller first. keith is a democrat. good morning. >> caller: good morning. mr. khanna, representative khanna, yeah, we need to stop playing games.
i'm a- die-hard progressive. and a democrat. and there is one word for my party right now, and it's feckless. feckless and in fear. the way you allowed corey lewandowski to attend that hearing and disrespect every member of congress, that was incredible. now, you have proof here of the president obstructing justice in realtime. impeachment is not a debate. it is obstruction. the inspector -- dsh which means must -- it's a law. there is no debate here. if he does not turn in the complaint, the transcript can come later. if he doesn't turn in that complaint and you do not hold him in contempt or take action,
you are failing and you don't deserve to be in office. >> okay. i share your frustration. and much of your point of view. i agree with you, this is not optional. if the director doesn't provide the complaint as is required by law, he should frankly be removed. i mean, he has violated the statute in disregard for the -- what congress wanted. and i fwree with you. i called for an sbeechment inquiry months ago. jerry nadler started the proceeding. but i do believe we need to unify the entire house caucus around that position so that there is no debate or ee give indication or ambiguity. >> brad is a republican, international falls, minnesota. good morning. >> earning good morning, john. quite a deal going on now. and it's really, really, really sad that they turned it up to in
point. i mean this is as far-fetched as telling the people that a spnz process -- on the whistleblower this is a about a young lady fired back a couple weeks back and didn't listen to the conversation. how can a whistleblower be a person that never heard the call? >> so brad. >> this is just a stunt. >> we're still waiting to find out more about the whistleblower complaint where do you get your manifestation. >> you know what, it's the writing on the wall, john. they know what's coming. they really know what's in the horowitz report and they know what durham found and doing everything they can right now to muddy the waters and block it because when they come out they're standing there and say well you didn't do anything to trump on and it's always well
but. >> ro khanna do you know what's coming. >> we don't. but here is how we can clarify that. we can have the president release the transcript of the call. and we can have the whistleblower complaint go to congress so that people can evaluate it. if there is nothing to hide, and if these reporting has been inaccurate, the president can easily clear up any ambiguity. but at this point he has the burden to show that there was nothing improper. i mean, there is reporting about him pressuring the ukrainian president zelensky eight times about biden. i know he tweeted out to say it wasn't the case. it wasn't, release the the transcript let's see the complaint appear prove it wasn't. >> comparisons between congress's reaction to the mueller investigation and the mueller report and in ukraine whistleblower complaint, from axe owes today saying ukraine is different because the mueller investigation played out through
press reports and occasional indictments softening the blow from the damning revelations of the report. the ukraine story uchlded in less than a week. what do you think that has meant for this? >> i don't think it's just the amount of time that it is unfolding in but the fact that it's forward looking. i think after 2016 it was such a ugly election, such a divisive election. there was part of the country that just wanted to move on and didn't want to relitigate what had happened even though there was sowers vials even though bob mueller was screaming the russians interfered the country said i don't have to have that campaign going on. but it's different when you have explosive allegations that the president may be for the 2020 election. soliciting interference. and there is a concern if you don't say something now and take action, then are we just making 2020 open to foreign interference? and i think that's why there is
such a stronger reaction to this. >> this is herby in moss point, mississippi for democrats, good morning. >> yes i want to know why you are doing the mesh people. when obama was in the republicans did that eight years so they can't get anything done. now trump is in trying to get something down now we go no the whistle blowing thing and trying to prosecute trump. we know bush took to us war with lies. whistleblowers told about the war situation, conned leisura rice and used all these people. and these people coming out after the lies were told and obama didn't do anything to this man for destroying our economy, taking us to war. but the gentleman said the other day china hadn't had a war since 79 and they spend their money on the economy and people over there and doing wonderful. >> that's herby in mississippi. on the whistle blowing process
and what this ukraine complaint means for the future a little bit we covered in the last segment what are your thoughts. >> let me answer one of herby's points and john get to you. herby you are right it was president carter who said china hasn't been in a war since 1979 and that we have been in 40 conflicts. i free with you, we shouldn't be getting into foreign wars. but this is of a different issue. and that is this this is that you have a whistleblower evidence that the president of the united states may have asked a foreign country to tarnish and investigate his political rival. the key for whistleblowers is that they need to be protected. and make sure that there isn't repercussions against them and that they can come through the process without a fear for their safety, without a fear for employment. and that's why we have a statute that has a step by step process.
this was not a partisan issue. it's important to realize if the whistleblower complaint was partisan or lacked evidence, the inspector general who is appointed by the president would not have forwarded it to the director of national intelligence. so you had an independent person appointed by the president who said this this complaint merritted being forwarded to fwres. >> this stand in maryland, independent. >> i'm stand a former immigrant from soviet union. became a snin in 2005. first of all i think cspan is bad to work with the democrats that's very obvious with the rest of the press. you know, being from soviet union i can see all the lies from republican side and democrat side altogether because
like iraq war proved that you can't -- you can't truf the intelligence community there in lying business. that's why they called spies. but that's all beside the point. i want to ask this democrat representative what does he know about the job item -- what job item was negotiated in china when his stole a billion and a half dollars from chinese. that's a question it seems to me nobody cares about, especially cspan or other press aband that's i think much more important question, what obama knew and what biden knew when the guy, you know, the biden's son got billion and a half dollars, what biden and obama was negotiating. and by the way, can you trace the money to obama and biden
accounts from this amount of money? i mean, did anybody try to investigate if any of this money got to obama, clinton, biden. >> got your question, stand. >> stand, frankly that's offensive. i say that as a cochair of bernie sandrini's campaign. thap. that coined of politics where you add launch add whom nim attacks on vice president biden who dedicated his life to public service, left when maybe 300 or 4,000,000 dhars of life shifgs you have no evidence for that and you attack and his family that's what's wrong with american politics. stick to the issues, stick to the facts. don't insult someone who has given their life to the country. i would feel equally if you launch those attacks on a republican. >> taking north of the border. month trael canada, richard, republican go ahead. >> good morning. when obama was caught off mic saying he will have more flexibility ar the election and the russian prime minister says,
thank you i will ree relay that to vladimir. i wonder by the congress doesn't like to talk about that? >> well the issue there was not one of president obama asking the russian president to do something to interfere in domestic politics. and if president trump had a conversation with vladimir putin or with xi jinping that was about foreign policy and if i disagreed with what he said or his judgment then i may criticize him. but that would not be a legal issue. that would not be an issue of violating the constitution. here you have a case of allegations that the president is asking a foreign government to interfere with the election. and that's the problem. it's not that he is engaged in a foreman form of negotiation that i may disagree with. >> lyssa on twitter wants to come back to the politics of impeachment. writing, regardless how have how pelosi's meeting goes today it
will be hilarious. either she camps down hopes of impeachment again because she knows it's a big fail or moves forward to the big fail and that's a win/win for trump. how would you respond. >> i don't think it's a win for trump. if it were a win for trump he wouldn't have a battalion of lawyers trying to do everything he can to avoid impeachment. i don't know a single person president of the united states who says you know, when i'm in the history books i want one of the first appraises about me to say that i was impeached. usually people running for president have extraordinary ambition. want to be well regarded in history. they usually don't want to be impeached. so i don't think the president is cheering for impeachment. >> jeffersonville, kentucky. line for democrats. william, good morning. >> yes i'd like to ask this man if him and all the other sitting on the committees do they have a
high enough security clearance to sit in on calls with other world leaders. i'd like to know that, zblier sir be, no certainly, i do not have permission to sit in on the president's calls with world leaders nor do i want to sit in on the calls. it would be highly inappropriate. i totally respect the president having the privacied is negotiation and diplomacy without congress sitting in or without the media sitting in. but this -- that's not what we're talking about. we're not talking about the president making a deal with north korea that i may disagree with or the president criticizing the iranian leader for a policy that i disagree with. we're talking about the president allegedly pressuring a foreign leader to investigate his political rival. and that's something that no president should have the authority to do. >> martin is an independent from egg harbor city, new jersey.
good morning. >> yeah, good morning. i'm going off on a slight tangent. it's about impeachment. i think that, you know, if the democrats go through with it the -- the leader -- the majority leader of the senate has outrageous power. and mcconnell wouldn't even allow a vote to happen. and i think -- i know the representative spoke about this before. and i think that in the constitution from what i understand that if it goes through and the -- and it happens to pass the senate, then -- and the president vetoes it then it goes through again tor -- needs two-thirds vote.
and some of the criticism was that why are they going through that process unless it's a -- because they would be identified who voted for yes and no and be held accountable on election. and i think that -- is there -- what's the situation about the majority leader having so much power to -- not to allow a vote like that? >> congressman khanna. >> i agree with you that the majority leader of the senate has way too much power. i personally need to get rid of the fill buster, restore a sense of democracy in the senate. but you made another very good point which is everyone should have to have a yes or no vote on in issue. there is something you learn in politics, there are 435 in congress. 10 oh senators, of course the president. i don't control ooltd of things in the process. if i worried about how how every process would end i'd be
paralyzed. all i can control is how i vote and what i believe in representing by constituency. and i think that's what every member has to do, and not game out how the process ends. >> the majority leader of the senate has been brought up mitch mcconnell this was mitch mcconnell yesterday on how the senate on congress is treating this whistleblower complaint. >> as my friend senator schumer is waive appear chairman burr and warner have been acting together to get the director of intelligence and the intelligence community inspector general before the committee this week. to discuss the matter. as with both matters before the committee, i believe it's extremely important that there work be madalynn in a secure setting with adequate protections in a bipartisan fashion. and based on facts rather than leaks to the press. it is regrettable that house intelligence committee chairman
schiff and senator schumer have chosen to politicize the issue. circumventing the established procedures and protocol that is exist so the committees can pursue sensitive matters in the appropriate deliberate, bipartisan manner. >> congressman khanna your thoughts on the comments yesterday. >> if i were guilty and i need add lawyer i would hire mitch mcconnell, because he can make the worst facts spin to his advantage. but the person who is obstructing the process isn't adam schiff, not senator chuck schumer. the person obstructing the process the director of national intelligence who refused to give the complaint to congress. and if he gave the complaint to congress none of this would have been public. but the -- schiff -- representative schiff was left with no choice because the director of national intelligence continues to be in blatsant viet. >> a few minutes left with
representative ro khanna. republicans 202-748 high pressure 80. annan int depend 8002 in in the time we have left you brought up being cochair of the bernie sanders complaint. he has a problem and her name is elizabeth warren. >> i disagree with that premise. bernie sanders has a campaign that is focused on working families, working americans and how they've been left out of the trump economy, how he is going to help them with raising wages, lowering prescription drug costs, helping their kids go to college. he has an extraordinary grass roots base. senator warren is running a strong campaign but frankly i think more of bernie's expanded coalition comes out of the vice president's vote and i'm very confident he is going to do well in iowa and new hampshire and still be the nominee. >> are you concerned about the
new cnn des moines register poll that warren at 22. biden at 20%. sandraers at 11%, to a two points higher than mayor pete. >> i think everyone will say it's a three-person race between warren, biden and bernie sanders. he has been an underdog before. you're always an underdog when you take on special interests. i still remember the days i was for howard dean. but john kerry was about at 2 or 3% at the time and he won. process it's very early. . necessary a good position. it's going to be a tough hard fought race between vice president biden and senator warren. but at the end of the day his focus on economic issues and working americans, people who trump betrayed, that's what's going to win it for him. >> a few minutes left with you let you chat with callers before you get to work on capitol hill. james in pawtucket, rhode island, republican, good morning. >> how are you doing today. >> i'm not really a republican.
i don't really like either party. i'm making a couple much points i'd like to hear your comments first of all biden was on national tv bragging about how he pressure the the ukrainian president then not gifting him a billion dollars unless he fired the prosecutor. second thing i'd like to hear is you can't have trump give all in transcript about the phone call because what other heads of state will trust trump backup keeping their calls private over in call who the whistleblower didn't even hear the call. it was secondhand information which is what you -- the facts was i know it's fox news. was confirmed in the horowitz report. yes he said it was urgent that congress sees it but he also says in the letter it wasn't from the original person. and third of all. >> james you brought up the two points let's take on those. >> well, first of all the vice president pressuring ukraine not to have corruption is toemgtsly different than what the
president is accused of having done. it would be as if vice president biden pressured ukraine to look into mitt romney's finances. i mean, that's the appropriate analogy. obviously american presidents pressure countries to deal with corruption. and no one would have a problem with it if that is what president trump did with ukraine. but there is "wall street journal" reporting that he had a conversation eight times asking ukraine to investigate not just the vice president but the vice president's family. and that he tied allegedly our foreign aid to that. and that's where there is a concern on the abuse of process. as far as i know on the facts we don't know the whistleblower we have not gotten the information about how he found out about the call and where his evidence is. and that's why congress should see the complaint. >> last call for you. robert portsmouth mouth,
practice virginia, democrat. >> good morning. >> good morning, representative. >> good morning. >> look years ago back when our forefathers were running the country, there was a little bit different thing about -- just like right now the transcripts, who has the transcripts? in person? who physically has the transcripts? >> i mean that's a good question. i don't know whether the transcripts are kept in the white house, whether they're kept in national intelligence archives. i don't know the details of who has them. i do know the president can make sure they are released to congress. >> that's all the time with congressman rowe khanna. >> thank you, i enjoyed it. >> and here on cspan3 we expected to be hearing soon from democratic presidential candidate joe biden, giving a statement on the whistleblower complaint against president trump. the complaint stems from a phone conversation the president had