THE RIGHT THING TODAY. ULTIMATELY, THE NEXT STEP HAS TO
BE MUELLER TESTIFYING.
THAT’S IMPORTANT.
THAT’S IMPORTANT. >> WHY DID IT TAKE HOLDER
SEVERAL MONTHS, HE TURNED OVER
700 DOCUMENTS.
700 DOCUMENTS. >> THAT HASN’T HAPPENED IN THIS
CASE.
CASE. >> I GOT TO WHERE I IN A SENATOR
WITH US, CHRIS COONS.
SENATOR COONS, WELCOME TO THE
PROGRAM.
PROGRAM. I KNOW I HAD YOU ON.
I BOOKED YOU FOR OTHER REASONS.
BUT I’M CURIOUS, NOW THAT YOU’VE
SEEN THE SENATE INTEL COMMITTEE
HAS SUSPENDED DONALD TRUMP, JR.
ESSENTIALLY, IT LOOKS LIKE FOR
TESTIMONY NOT THAT HE GAVE THE
INTEL COMMITTEE BUT QUESTIONS
OVER TESTIMONY HE GAVE TO THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE YOUR
CHAIRMAN ADD A SUBPOENA FOR
DONALD TRUMP, JR. BACK IN FRONT
OF YOUR COMMITTEE?
>> ABSOLUTELY, CHUCK.
I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT
IS AT RISK HERE AT STAKE HERE IS
THE REPUTATION OF CONGRESS FOR
ITS ABILITY AND WILLINGNESS TO
CONDUCT MEANINGFUL I DON’T HAVE
SIGHT.
SIGHT. WE HAD IN FRONT OF THE SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE A NUMBER OF
WITNESSES, INCLUDING DONALD
TRUMP, JR. I, OF COURSE, DON’T
KNOW, SPECIFICALLY, WHAT THIS
SUBPOENA FROM THE SENATE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE IS ABOUT.
THIS HAS JUST BROKEN IN THE
PRESS WHEN I THINK THE LAST HOUR
OR TWO.
OR TWO. BUT AS YOU’RE SUGGESTING IN YOUR
QUESTION, CHUCK, IT’S ENTIRELY
POSSIBLE THAT IT WAS THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE QUESTIONING
OF DONALD TRUMP, JR. AND THE
DIFFERENCE THAT WAS REVEALED IN
THE MUELLER REPORT TRANSCRIPT
THAT LED TO THIS SUBPOENA.
IT’S ENTIRELY POSSIBLE THAT
THERE WERE OTHER ASPECTS OF THE
TRUMP TOWER MEETING OR OF THE
TRUMP TOWER PROJECT IN MOSCOW
THAT LED TO THIS SUBPOENA.
I’LL CLOSE, CHUCK, BY SAYING ONE
OF THE THINGS I FIND ENCOURAGING
ABOUT THIS IS THAT IT’S A
REMINDER IN THE SENATE, IN OUR
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, THERE
CONTINUES TO BE REAL
BIPARTISANSHIP IN THE PURSUIT OF
ULTIMATELY THE TRUTH IN SOME OF
THESE IMPORTANT MATTERS THAT
WERE RAISED BUT HAVE NOT YET
BEEN RESOLVED.
BEEN RESOLVED. >> DO YOU THINK THE HOUSE WAS
CORRECT, THE HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE WAS CORRECT TO HOLD
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN CONTEMPT
OR IS IT TOO SOON?
>> YOU KNOW, LOOK, I’M NOT ON
THE HOUSE JUDICIARY XRT.
THE PRESS ACCOUNTS I’VE HEARD
SUGGEST THEY’VE TRIED AND TRIED
AGAIN WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
I HAVE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN
FRONT OF ME ON THE SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE RECENTLY.
I, FRANKLY, THOUGHT THE TONE AND
CONTENT OF HIS TESTIMONY TO US
SUGGESTED THAT HE SEES HIMSELF
NOT AS THE PEOPLE’S ATTORNEY,
NOT AS SOMEONE REPRESENTING THE
PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES AND
TASK, CHARGED WITH DEFENDING THE
CONSTITUTION AND RULE OF LAW,
BUT AS PRESIDENT TRUMP’S
PERSONAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY.
THAT’S THE TONE AND FLAVOR OF A
NUMBER OF HIS IMPORTANT WORD
CHOICES AND HIS CONDUCT IN THE
HEARING.
HEARING. THAT WAS MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.
I DON’T KNOW WHAT THE HOW
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE DID IN ORDER
TO EXTEND THEMSELVES REPEATEDLY.
MY STRONG IMPRESSION IS THEY
REACHED THE CONCLUSION AFTER A
NUMBER OF ATTEMPTS THWARTED BY
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND
ULTIMATELY BY THE PRESIDENT.
>> WHERE ARE YOU ON THE QUESTION
OF IMPEACHMENT?
OF IMPEACHMENT? YOU’VE GOT SOME OF YOUR
COLLEAGUES, ELIZABETH WARREN
SAYS, IT MUST START NOW.
GNOMES GNOMES SAYS, KEEP
INVESTIGATING, NOT YET.
THOUGH, SHE SEEMS TODAY INDICATE
HE MIGHT WANT TO SELF IMPEACH.
I’M DEBATE THAT WITH THE PANEL.
WHERE ARE YOU ON THIS?
>> I THINK WE SHOULD LISTEN TO
THE SPEAKER OF THE HOW WAS IT IS
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FROM WHICH ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT HAVE TO COME.
I WILL TELL YOU THERE ARE NOT
THE VOTES IN THE SENATE TO
REMOVE THE PRESIDENT FROM
OFFICE.
OFFICE. HE HAS STRONG AND LOYAL SUPPORTS
IN THE REPUBLICAN MAJORITY HERE
IN THE SENATE.
ABSENT SOME BOMBSHELL REVELATION
THAT WE DID NOT RECEIVE IN THE
MUELLER REPORT, I THINK THE ODDS
OF HIS REMOVAL THROUGH AN
IMPEACHMENT PROCESS ARE CLOSE TO
ZERO.
ZERO. >> I’M CURIOUS.
WHY SHOULD THAT BE THE FACTOR?
WHY SHOULD -- IF YOU BELIEVE THE
PROCESS, IF THIS IS ALL ABOUT
THE CONSTITUTION, HOW DO YOU
KNOW WHAT THE OUTCOME IS GOING
TO BE?
TO BE? WE THINK WE KNOW WHAT THE
OUTCOME WILL BE.
HOW DO WE KNOW?
SHOULD THAT BE THE DECIDER, YOU
DON’T BRING SOMETHING TO TRIAL,
WELL, WE KNOW WHAT THE OUTCOME
IS, THAT’S NOT HOW THE RULE OF
LAW IS SUPPOSED TO WORK.
>> THAT’S RIGHT, CHUCK, IF THIS
WERE A GARDEN VARIETY CRIMINAL
CASE WHERE WE DIDN’T KNOW THE
JURY AND WE DIDN’T KNOW HOW THEY
WOULD RESPOND TO THE CHARGES AND
THE EVIDENCE, IT WOULD BE
INAPPROPRIATE TO PREJUDGE IT AND
SAY LET’S NOT EVEN BRING THE
CASE.
CASE. BUT IN THIS INSTANCE, WE KNOW
THE JURY.
THE JURY. WE KNOW THE JURY VERY WELL.
WE KNOW THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
STATEMENTS AND ACTIONS ON
ANYTHING THAT WOULD CHALLENGE
PRESIDENT TRUMP’S VIEW OF
THINGS.
THINGS. THE OTHER ISSUE HERE IS WE HAVE
LIMITED TIME.
LIMITED TIME. WE’RE NOT A JURY.
WE’RE THE SENATE OF THE UNITED
STATES.
STATES. IN THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS WE
ACT AS A JURY.
MY CONCERN IS IF WE TAKE UP THE
ENTIRE NEXT YEAR-AND-A-HALF IN
WHAT WOULD BE VERY CONTENTIOUS
AND GRINDING IMPEACHMENT
PROCEEDINGS, WE WOULD NOT BE
LEGISLATING TO ANSWER THE ISSUES
THAT THE AMERICANS WANT US TO
SOLVE.
SOLVE. THAT’S WHAT THEY WILL JUDGE US
ON IN THE 2020 ELECTIONS.
WE HAVE TO BE MINDFUL OF BOTH
ROLES THAT WE ARE CHARGED WITH
HERE IN CONGRESS.
>> SO YOU ARE MAKING MORE OF A
POLITICAL ARGUMENT ABOUT THIS
THAN NECESSARILY A LEGAL
ARGUMENT?
ARGUMENT? >> THAT CORRECT.
IT IS A POLITICAL PROCESS.
THE CONSTITUTION ENTRUSTS TO THE
CONGRESS THE POTENTIAL
IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL OF THE
PRESIDENT, IT IS SORT OF A
QUASI-PROCESS.
QUASI-PROCESS. IT IS A POLITICAL PROCESS
BECAUSE WE ARE ALL ELECTED
OFFICIALS.
OFFICIALS. AND, FRANKLY, THE FACT THAT WE
ARE NOT SERVING SOLELY AS A
JURY.
JURY. WE ARE ALSO SERVING AS A SENATE
AND A HOUSE, AND WE HAVE A
LIMITED TIME AND RESOURCES, IS
WHAT LEADS ME TO SAY THE REPORT
IS PUBLIC.
IS PUBLIC. WE SHOULD CONTINUE
INVESTIGATIONS.
INVESTIGATIONS. WE SHOULD MAKE SURE THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT THE MISDEEDS
OF THE PRESIDENT AND HIS TOP
ADVISERS.
ADVISERS. BUT WE FRANKLY SHOULD TRY AND
LEGISLATE TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS
THE AMERICANS FACE.
>> IT ALSO SOUNDS LIKE YOU THREE
IN 2020 THE JURY OUGHT TO BE THE
VOTER?
VOTER? >> THAT’S RIGHT.
THAT’S EXACTLY RIGHT.
>> LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION
BEFORE I LET YOU GO, I KNOW YOU
HAVE BEEN FOCUSED ON THE IRAN
DEAL AT ITS CONCEPTION, WHERE IT
IS NOW.
IS NOW. SOME EUROPEAN COUNTRIES ARE
THINKING OF PUTTING SANCTIONS
BACK CONSIDERING THE MOVE IANIRA
ANNOUNCED YESTERDAY.
ANNOUNCED YESTERDAY. DO YOU THINK THE EUROPEAN
SIGNERS OF THIS ARE MAKING THE
RIGHT CALL?
RIGHT CALL? >> I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT WE
RE-ENGAGE WITH OUR VITAL ALLIES
ON THIS ISSUE.
IT WAS ONLY BECAUSE OF THE
COORDINATED PRESSURE OF OUR CORE
ALLIES AROUND THE WORLD THAT WE
WERE ABLE TO GET IRAN TO THE
DEAL, EXCUSE ME, TO THE
BARGAINING TABLE AND GET THEM TO
GIVE UP SEARCHING COMPREHENSIVE
INSPECTIONS OF THEIR ENTIRE
NUCLEAR ENRICHMENT AND WEAPONS
PROGRAM.
PROGRAM. SOIVE THINK WE SHOULD BE ACTING
IN CONCERT WITH FRANCE AND THE
UK.
UK. I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE RIGHT
THING FOR US TO DO.
>> DOES THAT MEAN YOU THINK WE
HAVE ALREADY PUT SANCTIONS BACK.
SHOULD THEY NOW?
>> YES.
>> YES. I THINK THAT IS THE RIGHT THING
FOR US TO DO.
AS IRAN TAKES STEPS IN THAT
DIRECTION, WE SHOULD DO WIT OUR