Skip to main content

tv   Impeachment Iran and 2020 Election  CSPAN  February 24, 2020 10:49pm-11:52pm EST

10:49 pm
10:50 pm
we're going to jump right in on this panel with me to my immediate right is now the anchor who is the editorial page editor of my tammy heralds, used in that position since 2013, so delighted you are here, so first time we've had the herald participated, very warm welcome to you joshua bergeron is on her way she should be here any minute national security correspondent for politico and what will be next to her is coming ski, her boss,
10:51 pm
who is a global editor and political previously editor and chief of politico, have been at the wall street journal before that. and then last but not least supplement at a quarter in chief of foreign policy magazine so delighted to have all three of you here. jonathan and welcome to you matt has been here before, a warm welcome to you as well. i'm going to jump right in and natasha will join us, which derives. i want to start with the latest developments to this year and that is the situation with iran, and i wanted to ask each of you, maybe jonathan i'll start with you if you don't, mind that will come back this way in the reverse the flow, how do you think the president has handled the situation with iran? >> first of all thank you david for having me here and thank you to all of you for listening. i had a phony thought today which i never expected to enter
10:52 pm
my, had shivas, if iran doesn't respond any further than it has today, or yesterday. and if the united states, the trump administration doesn't respond, we on the extent to which it has already. this might actually turn out okay. which like i said was not something that i would've anticipated even a few days ago, the mistakes i think began at the very beginning, trump acted without approval of congress, which is problematic, the locality of the strike was, problematic the timing of the strike was highly problematic, he ministration keeps insisting that it was done because -- was involved an imminent attack, that's problematic for two reasons one because it is not like he was an actual bomb
10:53 pm
planter, himself around is a highly institutionalized country he was a very good general but, one of many generals in a country's army, it's not like iran is a terrorist organization where decapitating were killing one leader decapitate's the organization, there is no evidence that tariffs to tack hasn't provided with any evidence, there was also a good reason, very worrisome cycle in the united states that will quickly lead to war and then the unexpected, happened iraq responded in a very restrained, and moderate way, seems to have deliberately avoided, casualties, american and iraqi,
10:54 pm
and the united states donald trump, responded in a limited and restraint, way for the moment, i think in part because what we are seeing in this whole episode is the two sides of trump at war with one another. one is the side of trump that favors belligerence and has to show that he's a bigger man. then anybody else, determine not to get dragged, think we've seen a vacillations tween those two, that's the best case scenario where we are right now. things don't get any worse, even as that happens, we are back where we were, toward the end of the bush administration
10:55 pm
where we have no nuclear deal, we've extremely hostile iran is extremely hostile with united states, the prospects toward negotiations for the two, whatever trump may think are absolutely nonexistent. and then of course, it's unstable, it's unlikely to remain where it is today, part of trump's promise in a speech yesterday, was it is going to start rushing up sanctions again, and if he does that macy's dreamy likely that the iranians will find ways under their policy of extreme resistance, swans tumeric him policy of extreme, pressure to start poking the night states, again if that happens, i think we're off to the races all over again,. >> i would say until proven otherwise trump is a master of two things. of messaging and reading the
10:56 pm
public mood. i think with the and ... he's got a pretty simple sentence here and i think democrats are finding themselves in a difficult position to counter it. we call the guy who's responsible for deaths of thousands of americans, potentially someone who has a lot of trouble in iraq since 2003, save sock, is all one side of the war, in yemen, we killed a bad guy, period, i don't think that's going to work very well for him, assuming he doesn't get any worse, actually don't see a contradiction between his, his move to do that, and now step, back that against the reading of the public mood, americans are not going to, and being sworn is not as well know is bin laden, but i think the case is already been made, that this was not something which anyone
10:57 pm
feels, any regret over. it's six months from now we're in a hot war in the middle east in their american soldiers dying there. yes that we 2005 iraq war. at its lowest point. but we are not there think if you're sitting in the white house today you are feeling pretty good about it. >> see how do you see and maybe also if you could give us the flavor of what your readers might be saying as well. >> our readers come down on both sides also in i'm gauging out from our letters to the editor. and i think trump has a couple of things going for him i, think american, ignorance -- he was not on anyone's radar, americans in general, he was not osama bin laden, yes he had done a lot of damage, but over there. i think american forgetfulness,
10:58 pm
i think self interest will rule as long as nothing escalates here. we will go back to cannot afford to pay the rent? where is my health care insurance? all legitimate issues. but i think also forgiveness. we are a forgiving people also. i think the ball is in the democrats court now. he has kind of, trump has played this well. when we didn't think he was going. two he's played it well, as he plays other missteps well. and we see say elizabeth warren. who had the temerity to actually call soleimani what he was, a terrorist, and a murderous terrorist. pulling back, because the left, is now saying you can't see anything that sounds
10:59 pm
complimentary to trump. so the democrats are going to have to find their voice, their backbone, the principles. this issue and beyond. >> let's stick with the democrats on this issue how do you see this affecting, if at all the democratic primary the nomination race >> i don't i really really don't, unless something big happens here. >> i've had some colleagues in iowa that say how fast they can get someone to watch the democratic debate play out the oven of the traditional spoke between realists, and interventionist and have that many democrats anyway between isolationist but even joe biden who could play the experience, card i think has been pushed by the strength of the progressive wing, of the democratic party, to take may be a more hostile stance on this than he would have otherwise done.
11:00 pm
again if you're sitting in the white house and the progressive win, is shaping on the response with shaping the debate around medicare for all and a lot of other issues suddenly it makes trump go from being a little bit off the mainstream two more into the american mainstream and in a strange way the safer choice for americans. which we would never thought we would be here at this point in the campaign. >> you see it having an impact on the democratic race, does it play for example is a take advantage someone like buttigieg who served in the military? >> first of all i agree that with nancy that if things stay where they are if the conflict doesn't escalate this not going to be much of an issue going forward and certainly debate moderators don't ask about it as they tended to shy away from foreign policy questions i don't see the campaign spontaneously making a big
11:01 pm
issue out of it or bigger more than they are they are determined not to talk about foreign policy i know this because i reached out to every one of the campaigns to ask for interviews over the last six months and i've been told by campaign managers and people virtually every one of the campaigns we know that at some point we're going to have to focus on foreign policy but frankly we really really don't want to and so we're not going to even do the work to engage until something forces our. hand this i don't think on its own is going to be the thing that forces their hand. >> the biden is sort of embracing this issue, it really placed to his strengths. >> and that's right and also places sanders strength because he has this very clear left-wing isolation pacifist position. it's a very clear issue for sanders it's a very clear issue for biden it is some potential for bloomberg as well but for others is to nuance for them to make anything out of it. >> i think it was actually
11:02 pm
sanders clarity on this issue that rattled elizabeth warren into walking back her original and i would say on point assessment you also touch on the reaction and how this is playing with florida's two senators with the congressional members as well how are they playing this is it along the lines that you described on the split? >> absolutely i think that they are solidly behind trump and solidly behind what he did, ruby own rick scott. >> do you see, all right so this issue is contained, and does not get any worse. are there looking down the horizon, all three of? you are there foreign policy issues that could prove important, maybe not pivotal, in the election,? >> usually elections about our economy. or things of that nature,
11:03 pm
anything that you imagine on the foreign policy level that is coming down the pipe? >> nationally, it's not as clear perhaps, through the lens of immigration, and how that continues to be handled or mishandled, depending upon, what's that you fall upon. >> also in florida, south florida, venezuela, cuba, to a far less degree in haiti, but tps is a foreign policy issue here. >> i think as we saw in that pew results, china is, has, been is and will continue to be, by the soviet union was maybe 30 years ago, and kind of focusing the conversation, not just about america's role in the world, but also what america is. it is the sort of power that is rising, trump has been very successful, in turning the narrative around china, to
11:04 pm
court, the business community was always very pro china and that is changed magically in the last three years. it's not only trump, i think you're seeing it from some of the rising republicans, marco rubio, becky haley who are focusing on china as an issue, and i think that's the one that will be with us, in this cycle, and beyond. >> i think that is exactly right, another slide of the survey showed that american voters don't care about foreign policy, when it's called foreign policy but what did you care about is economics in trade and terrorism, and so in so far as foreign policies involved in both of those, issues it certainly is in the trade war already, and it certainly if the conflict with iran leads to terrorism in a way that affects americans living within the united states that that could make it a major
11:05 pm
issue in the campaign. >> can i ask with the two of you may be just about secretary pompeo, indications like us seeing that he has said, he is not planning to run for the senate seat in kansas. there was an article describing pompeo, i think it was andrea mitchell wrote, saying he is the most powerful secretary of state in a long time, how would you describe the foreign policy process underway in the brand-new national security adviser and also the new secretary of defense? >> i think, and you could tell me if you disagree. i don't have to give you permission, the starkest example of how things have changed, is this memo, the trump reportedly god, a few days ago, or week or two ago, outlining the options, for how to respond to the missile strike, iranian missile strike, on the u.s. iraqi base, it
11:06 pm
included option-y, take us to mani, i think that option would not have been on the memo, earlier in the trump administration, because you had adult in the room. as of what he calls. some who had moderates like responsible policy makers, like mcmaster, like mattis, who are making sure that options like that are not getting to many if you have certain government, no you don't put a crazy chose on the memo to the principle, if you don't want, your principle to take that decision. isis is never turned the president, today there's nobody with any, stature equivalence shaken off the memo. >> matt hold on one second, its chair is actually for natasha. >> so is finding the story for
11:07 pm
sure, this you, there's an issue saying harrow, and obama came in he felt he needed adult supervision as, well you had clinton, if the pentagon, and then he put people around him that he was comfortable with, trump has done that sooner than obama did. think he seems to really like bryan, natasha would know better than i, do his a good relationship with pompeo, and esper, so for better or for worse, i think he's surrounded by people that he's both comfortable with, and he sees our to eye with. i don't want to question my competitors reporting on this, but there's been other reporting on, the soleimani option did not just sort of come out of the box, in the
11:08 pm
middle of december, and it's something that's been talked about for several months. and clearly pompeo and parents, had been, bending his ear on this. so, you can disagree with the decision, but it seems it in a way there's a more functional process, we never use the world process in regard to the trump administration you should pause, because it doesn't really apply often, but it seems to be in a semblance of a functional process, iran foreign policy that you may not have before. but you have that committee of rivals. >> it's a highly determined process. it is a certain kind of process. certainly it is a process, more in turned with the president's instincts and desires, arguably
11:09 pm
it's not the best process, because it is not presenting him with as many options, as i think he did before. >> you want to jump in on the foreign policy, decision-making process, pompeo's role versus o'brien, versus esper. and we have a mention one other player, mike pence. >> it's probably been already said that pompeo is probably the most powerful secretary of state. he's kind of the defensive and, terry secretary of state. as for this whole good to, the idea of any kind of check on his first impulse, is most of this, point bryan has been a yes man through and through, he is not challenging him in a way the john kelly used to for
11:10 pm
example, so i think that's why people are kind of where it is harsh if he gets re-elected in 2020, it really the only track, there's going to be on the president, is congress, and as we've seen that really hasn't worked out so well, he was impeached, now that going to turn out in the, senate probably is going to be acquitted rather quickly, the amount of constraints that are on, him at this moment, a really weak, and i feel like the people that are surrounding him more and more, i will hold it to him, and are more pro trump than they ever have been. >> i would say that it took him a while to get to this point, you know the flip side is, i feel it's a little odd to say this, but what you set aside, there's suddenly, sub stability, he's not fighting with a
11:11 pm
tillerson, he's not fighting with a kelly. the revolving door of his inner circle seems to have slowed, if not stopped. there's a flipside here. also to what remains worrisome. >> you touched a little while ago on the issues of venezuela being important to people in this community, could you maybe talk a little bit about how the administration has handled those issues and how you think it's seen here as well? >> i think that one reason, we wrote an editorial last year with the headline called marco rubio, trump's significant, it got a lot of plays views, i think that for all the antipathy between, them during the campaign, as long as rubio has trump's ear, on venezuela and cuba, that relationship
11:12 pm
that reluctance, for rubio to actually really, listen to his better angels, here if he still has them, will remain. >> venezuela remains a very big issue here, as just cuba, the lack of tps, being offered to venezuelans who are already here, really does stick in, i think they will also be sticking with trump. >> just on another, no we are still seeing this backdoor diplomacy happening, is just come out in the post, in the washington post that rudy giuliani was trying to, make some kind of deal with maduro, and this is fundamentally the issue with trump's foreign policy, is that he is people around him that he really, trust that aren't necessarily in government, that don't have
11:13 pm
any relevant experience, and he's going to rely on them, always more than he does, the people, his advisers that have, what's left of them have relevant experience. here >> do you have an insight into the pompeo, giuliani dynamics, because there are phone calls concerning ukraine between the two it appears? >> given that giuliani does seem to be playing on a number of issues. it would really be a secretary of state. do you feel that dynamic? >> he used giuliani as a thorn in his side. and if you zoom as someone who he just has to deal with, because the president views giuliani as kind of a security, blanket they've known each other for decades, they go back a long time to their new york days, and he knows that giuliani is his most loyal soldier. and giuliani asked the state department. to look into allegations of corruption, regarding joe biden,
11:14 pm
tells the state department looking really need to look at why she is not, efficient what she's, doing pompeo look at that and says. okay, well i guess we have to, because the president's personal lawyer, pompeo of course as not cross the president, and doesn't really planned to. >> so matt we've touched on a player who is a central, role in the impeachment controversy and that is rudy giuliani. >> how do you see the impeachment process play out? cody wrong even if it is came change have an impact on at least the timing of the process? can you tease all for us how you think this might unfold? >> i've yet to meet a single person in this country whose mine has changed about donald trump as a result of the impeachment process. that is the fundamental problem for democrats. i think pelosi had to do what she did, probably cause she had so much pressure from, and she
11:15 pm
has unify caucus, picking up a lot of buyers regrets on impeachment, the candidates just love to move on from the impeachment, conversation, they don't see it as a win, for them, and in congress as well, newfoundland look at the trump fund-raising numbers through the impeachment saga, this is been a winner for him, with his, base it hasn't really been a winner with the democratic base. in terms of the way it turns out wake me up in a two month and it will be exactly the way i think it will turn on as something crazy happens. crazy think -- pretty things happen all the time but it's been a doll show because it's so predictable. >> jonathan take us a little brought on the impeachment issue looking at how it's playing in the broader
11:16 pm
international stage. >> i think you have to make a distinction in answering the question of what other countries feel about impeachment and how it's affecting behavior. i think there is such a spectacular fear of -- and towards donald trump around the world that countries and their citizens and their leaders, would be happy to see anything take this guy out whether it's an election, impeachment or a meteor strike they're not being picky. there is a poignant moment during bill clinton's impeachment trial or the impeachment process where he went to the united nations and got up before the general assembly and gave a speech and there was a spontaneous standing ovation from countries around the world and this was
11:17 pm
interpreted as a sign of global global support for clinton despite the impeachment. it's pretty hard to imagine the same thing happening today and that's both because of the difference in the feelings towards the president and the stick is involved in the impeachment trial itself. asked for whether it's going to change the way anybody behaves i think it depends on how the process plays out. if it continues long enough and that countries feel like it's really distracting the president and the u.s. government and potentially making a trump into a lame that then i think what will see is an exhilaration of a process frankly that is not new. has been going on since the beginning of this administration bows was well underway before trump became president under the obama
11:18 pm
administration as well when much of the rest of the world felt like the united states was no longer interested in what was happening elsewhere. was no longer willing to come to the defense of friends and allies and i say this rightly or wrongly but i think it was real and what that cost was a number of things. you saw allies starting to -- their bets by closing up a striking canoe deals with u.s. adversaries, china and russia in particular. this is something that's happened dramatically in the last few years. one striking example with china signing -- excuse me italy signing up for china spell its main road initiative last year but there have been lots of examples. you also see proxies countries like israel and saudi arabia continuing to take matters into their own hands and now
11:19 pm
worrying as much as they did in the past of what washington might think of what they're doing because still feel like nobody is paying attention. i think you'll see u.s. adversaries like china and russia feeling even less constrained in what they can do because it will be the perception the trump administration isn't paying attention and all of this leads up to a much more dangerous world. >> and see if you would bring it back home nationally but also in florida and here in miami, how do you see the impeachment process playing out? >> again i see the same divisions that we see with -- issue. just gauging from anecdotal conversations impeachment is either the right thing to do and must happen for this is a waste of time.
11:20 pm
we all know you people hate trump. it's just how it's playing out. >> natasha, what else is out there that hasn't come out yet that might weigh in on this? you've got john bolton now saying he is willing to testify if subpoenaed by the senate. could that be something that would change the dynamics? >> potentially i think it is unlikely right now that the senate is going to subpoena john bolton and i think he knows that i don't think he's come up with a good excuse with what he can testify before the says but not before the house in the same impeachment trial. the real reason is one is control republicans obviously, but i think what we heard from fiona hill the top russia europe advisor honey nfc who left during her impeachment testimony about john bolton, about his oppositions what was going on and the thrust of what he can testify to there were a
11:21 pm
few meetings he was in where he voiced his opposition to the drug deal that rudy and cool looking up but apart from that it is unclear whether he would delve into those conversations during a testimony because executive privilege was the president still has not existed but he could. i think the possibility of more emails coming up which is very real good further endanger trump as the senate trial looms because we know there is something that they're hiding. the office of management budget is refusing to release roughly 20 emails between their office and it's up to mulvaney about this ukraine aid and the discussions that went on behind the scenes about the real russian now function. marcellus continue as more
11:22 pm
comes out about what the president was telling his advisers, what was happening with regard to this hold on ukraine, a that's really the biggest piece of it, is the money, and that could i think, have a big impact, on public opinion, if not on republicans in the senate. >> as a drawn out process, does that play to the benefit of the republicans, or the democrats, how do you see the length of time that's involved? >> i think my guess is that, the democrats would like to move on from this, as soon as possible, primarily because the scandal is just so hard, ukraine is, this is kind of hard to get your hands around, really, what it is, why really matters, and my guess would be the democrats who probably want to do this fast, and to the goodness of trump can use this to really nurture, that martyr
11:23 pm
complex. they are all out to get, me that is a very effective message, with the constituency, that he needs to mobilize. >> johnson, we're talking about the, hill with the, impeachment there were striking comments yesterday by senator paul, and senator lee about the intelligence briefing provided about the situation in iran, do you see that as an aberration that otherwise republicans are going to hold together when it comes to impeachment, or is there sufficient separation with the iran situation that it could lead to some splits? >> i don't see much, i think that's wishful thinking. i'm going to ask each of you to finish the following sentence. the democratic nominee is going to be. >> the democratic nominee is going to be the person who can
11:24 pm
really, i don't have a name, i do not have a name. i, know i do not have a name, i'm still waiting to be impressed, who has a definitive, saying, message, that resonates, one with democrats, who do want to get rid of trump, and two, to moderate republicans. who are also, appalled, and could use a change. their message needs to be much more succinct than my answer to your question. 5 million dollars, and said you can have this money if you can correctly guess who the democratic nominee is going to be? >> oh i guess? i think it's biden's to lose, but he needs to be careful. he needs to up his game.
11:25 pm
and not daughter, night don't mean to sound ageist, but let's face it. >> natasha, you took it 1 million dollars, i just want an answer. >> i'm not in a prediction game anymore after 2016. but, i do think it's biden's to lose, but don't sleep on warren, buttigieg i'm not a political reporter per se, but he's i speak to my colleagues about, it really has a huge shot here. i can make a case for actually anyone of, them even andrew yang to be honest. >> your answer was as long as mine. >> i was going to. say matt can you give me assessing to answer? >> okay boomer. >> it will definitely be someone in their seventies. probably not okay bloomberg.
11:26 pm
if you judge candidates but who's the most appealing on television? who gets your attention? yang and buttigieg. you're going to want to watch what they see, on that debate in l.a., when yang kind of stole the show, and buttigieg says really really good, i thinking it's too much of an outlier, and buttigieg is really too young, and it's too early, so we are going to have now her, president, who should be retired probably. >> it's torture to put a bunch of journalists up on stage and give them microphones. and then asked them to give short answers. i have to caveat this by saying ivan unbroken record of guessing these things wrong. and so i think i will be doing a disservice, to whatever candidates name comes out of my mouth, because i will be guaranteeing that they tend don't get the nomination, it's like the kiss of death, do you
11:27 pm
see how meeting up and it's here all that said, i don't think that the debates, are having much impact on most voters, and so i think that the structural, factors the underlying factors will, dominated i think it's going to be biden, and probable, a squib biden klobuchar. >> i wanted to add, maybe sort of amplify his point, that biden has had a pretty good two months, he's had a pretty good 12, minds he's been pretty much in the same place in the polls, since the beginning, he is written, off my colleague john harris, had a great colleague, a great column called grandpa simpson, is about biden, he stuck, around more recently he seems more there. he hasn't made that many mistakes, he sort of still getting into. it i think warren is probably, fading which is amazing if you
11:28 pm
have bernie sanders biden runoff, >> i'm going to add one more question in that we're gonna go to the audience for questions, let me ask you, nancy will start with you, donald trump is reelected, what kind of foreign policy would you expect? >> scorched earth? >> that was a short answer, i think any presidents, is unleashed, is loosey-goosey, during that second term, assuming that he's not going to go for third term, or attempt it, and so i think, that but i also think that he will probably, even trump will be worried as i was saying earlier. i think will be on only cares
11:29 pm
about is winning. it isn't exactly stick to the promise of being wanting -- to pull out of the middle east, he's quickly turn that on his head, can't trust anything he said, whatever that may be, it's hard to predict, but as i said again, i think that congress will really be the only check on him, and unless, they voted just hours ago, on the war powers resolution, so seeing how that plays out, will be interesting, but i don't think, part of the thing is interesting to me, is that our allies are preparing, for trump, when they are not going to be caught flat-footed, talk to a difference in the, row they're saying we are playing for trump
11:30 pm
to win reelection, we are not gonna be caught off guard, there making plans to for what that is going to look like, and so, it's really anyone's guess at this point. >> before moving on, let me just ask, you do you anticipate the senate would vote on the war powers resolution, it would not pass it would it? >> i don't think it would. there are few republicans, that have signal that they are on board, but getting enough, is going to be tough. >> i would see it through, trying to describe what kind of trump paradox, he is on the one hand, the most rash, and it's no pay chaotic process yet arguably we're experiencing the most transparent presidency we've ever had. we sort of know what's on his, mine almost instantly, even the thing that we thought was
11:31 pm
deviously, a crane scandal that came out very fast and we know most of the details again pretty soon after, the other paradox is, trump is checked by public, opinion i think he is very sensitive, to reading the national mood, and reacting to it, and a bunch of iranians in our embassy, not gonna repeat, everyone remembered, i'm gonna hit up, and then atlanta step back, because no one wants to repeat of that iraq war. other part of this paradox, i think that he's kind of rash, in his communications, he's not that russian is actions, there are some things, the prayed thing was that rash, but in general, there's a case to be made, that if he had another republican president, let's say, jeb bush, kind of the public view, would be completely different, i say the 75% of the
11:32 pm
policies, in the judicial appointments to be exactly the same, trump is not such a big risk taker, i don't know if you remember the campaign, when there was a firework that went off, or something, someone begun popped a, he kind of docked really quickly, he's not a pro fellow encourage were not known as one, i guess i would not think that necessarily, it would be kind of alvarado, in the trump second, term just based on, how he is behaved, in the first term. >> jonathan? >> let me just say if folks want to ask questions, the microphones, their once, their pleas lineup for them. >> i see medical science making enormously pass forward, because the effort to keep ruth bader ginsburg alive. will become so preoccupying for so many people, i think we'll
11:33 pm
see more advances at extending human life in the next four years. apart from that, it will be sheer in total, can you swear on c-span or is that not allowed? mayhem. and the levels of self dealing, i think will grow exponentially, but i agree with what nancy said, that i think trump will start looking for his legacy, i agree with what natasha said, that a lot of things that he talks, about he doesn't actually care about, what he does care, about we've seen this all through his career, we've seen this throughout his presidency, is making deals, i think we'll see him really start swinging for the fences, on every area where there is a deal possible. and in some cases, that may turn out to be a good thing. we may see deals possibly with china, that resemble the template set by u.s. mexico, canada act, which is essentially the story hash of
11:34 pm
something not very different, that in fact improved on areas of trade protection, and worker protections, and some other areas, so deals like that, the trump campaign for lack of a better word, don't represent something, you i think there is a real danger, that it is desperation to sign a deal with say north korea,, he gives away for far too much, in exchange for four too little. >> let's go to questions, we're going to take to at a time, if you say who you, are in turn to keep it brief. >> hi my name zippered, oh i'm an accounting mayor juror, before and smoke question, i want to, add also think that the crisis currently nicaragua something very important to talk, about this going to affect a lot of future u.s. foreign policy, it's going to affect i think a lot of elections here in south florida 2021 candidates, intellectual
11:35 pm
it official bring some questions to, and in terms of i, question i know you guys talked about this a little, but i want to kind of expanded. we talk about the impeachment trial specifically the senate. do you think that that will sway the senate majority, will it swing back to the democrats, i'm saying this because i'm thinking people like cory gardner in colorado, if he wants to acquit trump is not really going to help a lot in a blue state like colorado, and also people like susan collins in maine, it probably could affect your reelection potentially? >> thank you andrew. >> my question is in regards to the iran situation. what you touched on, last week there working on this with moscow, beijing, and with tehran, there had been under reported or non reported by the washington press corps. china's beijing specifically, i like to say the chinese communist party, or 90 million people, to challenger rule over 1.3 billion people not just china, they are breaking
11:36 pm
sanctions against iran every, day according to the iran regime, buying iranian oil at a discounted price, and we are about to sign a trade deal next week with them, with 3 million, the pentagon reports up to 3 million leaders being held in concentration camps in a quarter of the world cotton supply being picked up by these people concentration camps, how can people in the washington press corps are holding the administration count on, that and it seems like it's a parlor game, and not the substance a lot of the time, thanks? >> who wants to address these? >> i respond to that one? >> we had foreign policy did cover the war came last week, and foreign policy we have been covering the detention and concentration camps, consistently including the way that situation to china is now changing supply chains and all sorts of different, industries so the information is out there,
11:37 pm
i think in order to have change, the situation will change till the u.s. government sees the, issue under this administration that is not likely to happen, but great pressure can come from corporate america's, well that tends to happen when we force corporate america. >> on a senate trial, i guess he's not going to get convicted unless something dramatically changes, and i, can't between issue has really taken off the way that i think nancy pelosi would hope that it would have taken off, i don't think it will be the witness issue for any of susan collins, where she really tempted to vote to convict, or cory gardner to do something else, that he might otherwise have done. >> nancy do you want to? >> i agree with matt, i think cory gardner certainly as --
11:38 pm
what mitt romney, ought to be as good politics for him to say this gold here for trial and i want to hear witnesses, i want to see, documents ultimately, there's no evidence that they're actually going to break with the majority. >> back over here and then there. >> hi, my name is earnest ron tunis, and i'm a political science major here to fight you, my question, and concern, regards iran, let's say we were to shift our thinking, and accept the fact that we've been in a de facto state of, war with iran, since 1979, would that solve many of the questions regarding the strike? >> my name is alexander from the united nations program here to fire you what my question is in regards to the impeachment. in the house, the perception
11:39 pm
among the american public of this opinion rushed impeachment, how do you think that's going to play out in the reelection for the house democrats in maintaining their majority? >> in terms of questions, surrounding the soleimani, killing, i would have to say i'm not sure how many outstanding they are still or, i think that there is, or there should be agreement that this was a very bad actor, this drone strike really did not fall out of the sky, last week, this has been a long building marge, it has been under discussion, who soleimani is truly beyond, being a terrorist, being a murderer, we have actually, you know you talk to
11:40 pm
ryan, ryan cruger, ryan cruger, they actually work together. in trying to bring a government to afghanistan, and so he, he is a complex, he was a complicated, complicated person, i'm not sure the ward further outstanding questions there are about him. >> questions you want to call on? >> i don't think that if you talk to any democrat, they would tell you that impeachment was good politics for them. they understand that, especially with the moderate democrats, that this was a tough decision to go down this road. and ultimately their hand was forced by the fact of the day after robert mueller testified about russia's election interference, and all the contacts in the trump campaign had with the russians, what did trump do? he got on the phone with
11:41 pm
ukrainian president. basically invited him to interfere again in 2020. that was really what nancy pelosi says. that was really the straw that broke through camels back, they could not ignore this anymore, the judiciary committee, efforts to try to slow walk impeachment process, without calling, impeachment never took off, and once this happened, that's when all the momentum and all of the steam was really gained in the democratic caucus for moving forward on this because they couldn't justify not doing it anymore and the rationale i think for having it, having the process be the way it was with back-to-back hearings, first you had the private depositions and then you had it out in the open, it all seem to move very quickly once again this question of, this question of what the time it was urgency is the guy opposes a national security threat. we're coming up on the 2020 election, if we don't hold him accountable then how will he be held accountable, what
11:42 pm
precedent will this after the future, and i think, nancy pelosi unfortunately has given the other side a little bit of ammunition here by holding on to the articles of impeachment for as long as she has. because it kind of undermines the argument that this really really is urgent,, for the last couple months it's gonna play out in 2024 democrats, i don't think any of them will tell you that this is something they did. because they thought it would help. them win the election let's go to this side and then over here. good afternoon. my name is francisco santino i am a freshman here at nyu and my question is to mr. temperament. you very briefly mentioned klobuchar ends candidates for the presidential and 2020. i noticed that when asked she said she does not have international traction or
11:43 pm
funding to be anywhere near close to a potential candidate so what about her as one of the few remaining man -- makes you see her as a great candidate? >> klobuchar. >> hold on jonathan and we get one more. >> hello and good evening. . my name is lee and i'm a student studying international relations -- right here >> thank you. and my question kind of is more geared towards getting a better understanding of what americans actually value, because right now if it's about record, in my personal opinion i think bernie sanders has the best record compared to elizabeth warren or joe biden, and when you compare the whole age aspect i do understand it does feel like there is a huge divide in the american public right now and as well as in foreign policy. it feels like we are on the
11:44 pm
same page but we wanted to camera mark and so first for one tends to be more let's cut immigration and do these processes and the other feels more let's take over infrastructure and more inward policies so my question is geared towards that. what are the american people care about right now? thank you. >> you have a klobuchar question. >> she's a smart pick for biden. she bounces interest in terms of gender and age but she is also the philosophically close to biden and that she is a moderate and the campaign has gone on. like biden she also has a strong appeal in purple areas. she's a very good record of winning elections by strong
11:45 pm
margins in areas that are not safe democratic territories and that is something the democrats need so they can win back wisconsin, pennsylvania michigan and other races in the election >> she had a breakthrough performance when she pretended to be stiff and the smaller states who did her well and some people thought she's a credible candidate. you're right she becomes very appealing as a vp pick. the other question i can address the once -- the one opinion survey stuck in my mind last couple of weeks was what percentage of americans feel positively about the economy in 2016 that was i think 47%. today it's 76%. for all of the noise and chaos
11:46 pm
the trump presidency has generated the fact of the matter is only a small minority and in on a representative group of people are obsessed with cable television weathers msnbc or fox. most people live and are not consumed by politics day to day but they look around. how are things? things are pretty good. my 401(k) is up 20%. on unemployment that 3%. the country is generally at peace. i think there is constituencies that have things they care about a lot but generally the mood is good and i think that is just naturally in favor of the income -- and that's where trump is more of a conventional president and i think you maybe realize. >> with apologies out we have time for one more and i'm going to go to the gentleman right here. my apologies.
11:47 pm
last question. >> thank you so much for being here. my name is brian escobar and i'm here -- for the four national anniversary and my question goes back to the iranian conflict in terms of what iranians the attack they had in the military base in iraq we don't know how the u.s. will respond however if in the case the u.s. retaliate which nations do you believe will enter the picture, saudi arabia, israel, which nations will come into the picture interns of this conflict and what will undergo in the case of the u.s. retaliate can? >> i do think iran is a fundamentally weak state in the region. that's why i has to use a symmetric means. there aren't many natural iranian allies. the chinese will complain but they'll be happy to see the u.s. enmeshed in that something
11:48 pm
that will be costly and distracting. same goes for the russians. when you look around the region all the sunni states their sworn enemy is iran. i just find that the world war three sinner that's been thrown around in the media last is a fun thing to have a trend on twitter but it's hard to game owl how that came out but i don't see what the other side looks like. >> i agree with everything my colleague just said but that doesn't mean the conflict has to be an existential one and that the iranians because of their weaknesses have proven to be good at finding ways to strike the u.s. and damage their interest through proxies and with just deniability that
11:49 pm
it doesn't lead to a frontal reprisal from the united states and what concerns me and should concern all of us is that the united states is highly exposed throughout the region. we have 100,000 troops draw the broader middle east. we had allies or close friends which i highly vulnerable. there are oil installations the iranians can attack but they've also gotten very good at cyber. that is an area with no doctrine. it's a virtually ungoverned area of warfare and the most likely response is that the iranians will continue escalating and will we start with the vigor their nuclear weapons program and that is something that while it may not lead to world war three is something they should consider
11:50 pm
-- consider to solve. >> my final minute because i did not learn the first time i tried this, i'll try again. >> after the election in november, the u.s. president is going to be -- >> isn't that the same question? >> i asked you who democratic nominee would be. >> i learned a lesson you don't want to answer these questions but try again. >> remember how i said i have an unbroken record of calling -- and i feel bad because the name that comes out of my mouth is guaranteed not to be the person rings? donald j trump. >> i'll stick by my race -- a baby boomers going to win. i'm thinking trump >> i got an answer for each of you. ladies and it's woman join me in thanking nancy, natasha, matt and jonathan. terrific panel.
11:51 pm
>> acting homeland charitable of testifies tuesday on the president's 2021 budget request for dhs. live coverage begins at 10 pm eastern on c-span 3. online at or listen live on the free c-span radio app. >> the fence architecture mark esper and joint chief of staff mark milley testify on the president's 21 budget requests other federal officials will testify on a coronaviruses response for a house subcommittee. watch out live thursday at 2 pm eastern on c-span 3, online or listen live with the free c-span


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on