Hisamitsu.
>>> YOU’RE SAYING THIS IS Hisamitsu.
>>> YOU’RE SAYING THIS IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS WHAT WE ALL
CALL FORMAL IMPEACHMENT
PROCEEDINGS BY A ANOTHER NAME?
>> THIS IS FORMAL IMPEACHMENT
PROCEEDINGS.
PROCEEDINGS. WE ARE INVESTIGATING ALL THE
EVIDENCE.
EVIDENCE. WE GATHER THE EVIDENCE AND WE
WILL AT THE CONCLUSION OF THIS
HOPEFULLY BY THE END OF THE YEAR
VOTE TO -- VOTE ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT TO THE HOUSE FLOOR
OR WE WON’T.
THAT’S A DECISION WE’LL HAVE TO
MAKE.
MAKE. BUT THAT --
>> THIS IS FORMAL IMPEACHMENT
PROCEEDINGS, ACCORDING TO THE
MAN WHO GETS TO SAY WHETHER OR
NOT THAT IS SO.
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE CONGRESSMAN JERRY
NADLER OF NEW YORK WHO JOINS US
HERE NOW LIVE ON SET.
IT’S NICE TO SEE YOU.
>> GOOD TATTOO SEE YOU.
>> YOU SAID EARLIER THIS EVENING
THIS SHOULD BE SEEN AS WHAT WE
COLLOQUIALLY
COLLOQUIALLY COLLOQUIALLY DESCRIBE AS
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS.
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS. WHY HAS THIS BEEN FUZZY AS
WHETHER OR NOT THEY’RE UNDER
WAY?
WAY? >> I DON’T THINK WE SHOULD GET
HUNG UP ON SEMANTICS.
WE’VE MADE IT CLEAR THE
COMMITTEE IS HOLDING AN
INVESTIGATION.
INVESTIGATION. WE’RE LOOKING INTO THE VARIOUS
CHARGES OF MALFEASANCE,
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, ABUSE OF
POWER BY THE PRESIDENT.
AND WE ARE CONSIDERING WHAT TO
DO ABOUT IT INCLUDING POSSIBLE
VOTING OF ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT.
IMPEACHMENT. >> WHEN YOU SAID THAT YOU EXPECT
THERE WILL BE A VOTE BEFORE THE
END OF THE YEAR ON WHETHER OR
NOT TO APPROVE ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT.
IMPEACHMENT. >> WELL, IF WE DECIDE TO DO
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT WE’LL
HAVE A VOTE.
IF NOT, WE WON’T HAVE A VOTE.
>> WHY THE END OF THE YEAR YOUR
TIME FRAME?
TIME FRAME? >> IT’S AN ASSUMPTION TO HOW
LONG THESE COURT FIGHTS WILL
TAKE AND HEARINGS WITH
WITNESSES.
WITNESSES. WE’LL SPEND I ASSUME SEPTEMBER
AND OCTOBER ON HEARINGS WITH
WITNESSES WE DON’T HAVE TO GET
THROUGH COMPULSORY PROCESS IN
COURT.
COURT. HOPEFULLY THE COURT PROCEEDINGS
WILL GET US THE WITNESSES LIKE
McGAHN AND OTHERS AFTER THE END
OF OCTOBER.
OF OCTOBER. AND IF THAT IS CORRECT, THEN
THAT’S AN APPROXIMATE TIME
FRAME.
FRAME. >> AND THIS LAWSUIT THAT YOU
FILED THIS WEEK TO TRY TO COMPEL
DON McGAHN’S TESTIMONY, TO TRY
TO MAKE HIM RESPECT YOUR
SUBPOENA, I BEEN DESCRIBING
THIS -- AND I REALIZE I’M
DESCRIBING THIS ON THE BASIS OF
OTHER PEOPLE LIKE ME DESCRIBING
THIS AND I SHOULD CHECK IT OUT
WITH YOU -- BUT THE WAY I LOOK
AT THIS IS THIS IS ABOUT GETTING
McGAHN’S TESTIMONY BUT IT SEEMS
TO ME THROUGH THIS LAWSUIT YOU
WERE ESSENTIALLY TRYING TO
UNLOCK WHAT HAS BEEN BLOCKING
OTHER WITNESSES FROM TESTIFYING.
>> THAT’S EXACTLY RIGHT.
THE LEGAL ISSUES IN McGAHN ARE
EXACTLY THE SAME LEGAL ISSUES
FOR HOPE HICKS AND ALL THE OTHER
WITNESSES.
WITNESSES. SO WHEN HOPEFULLY WE WIN THE
McGAHN LAWSUIT ALL THE OTHERS
WILL FOLLOW.
WILL FOLLOW. THE WHITE HOUSE IS ASSERTING
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FOR
PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTEES WHICH IS
AN ABSURD CLAIM AND THAT’S
ESSENTIALLY WHAT THEY’RE
ASSERTING.
ASSERTING. IF THE COURTS, GOD FORBID, WERE
TO UP HOLD SUCH A CLAIM THAN
NEVER MIND THE IMPEACHMENT,
THERE’D BE NO CONGRESSIONAL
OVERSIGHT OF THE EXECUTIVE AT
ALL BECAUSE YOU COULD SIMPLY SAY
ANYONE WHO DEALS WITH THE
PRESIDENT, ANYONE IN THE
ADMINISTRATION DOESN’T HAVE TO
TESTIFY AT ALL.
AND THAT WOULD DESTROY THE
SEPARATION OF POWERS.
IT WOULD ESSENTIALLY MAKE THE
PRESIDENT UNACCOUNTABLE TO
CONGRESS AND THEREFORE TO THE
PEOPLE AND MAKE HIM A KING,
WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE
FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION DID
NOT WANT TO DO.
>> DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU’RE
HOPING FOR IN TERMS OF THE TIME
FRAME ON A RESOLUTION OF THIS
McGAHN CASE?
McGAHN CASE? IF HIS TESTIMONY IS KEY TO YOUR
INQUIRY AND ON ITS OWN TERMS BUT
ALSO IN TERMS OF UNLOCKING OTHER
WITNESSES SO YOU COULD HEAR --
>> WE DON’T KNOW THE TIME FRAME.
WE’VE ASK THAT BE EXPEDITED AND
WE’VE ASKED AN IMPEACH LT
PROCEEDING AND IS IN OUR LEGAL
PAPERS YOU’RE ENTITLED TO THE
HIGHEST DEGREE THAT AREN’T
PRESENT IPNORMAL OVERSIGHT.
HOPEFULLY WE GET A DECISION FROM
THE LOWER COURT ION’T KNOW A
NUMBER OF WEEKS, AND FROM THE
COURT OF APPEALS IN A COUPLE OF
MONTHS AND HOPEFULLY IT DOESN’T
GO BEYOND THAT.
>> WITHIN A COUPLE OF MONTHS,
IT’S ALREADY AUGUST, SO IT’D BE
SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER, IF YOU’RE
LOOKING AT HOPEFULLY VOTING Wii
THE END OF THE YEAR, IF YOU
DECIDE TO PROCEED WITH ARTICLES,
THAT’S A QUICK TIME FRAME.
>> YEP, IT’S A QUICK TIME FRAME.
I’M NOT SAYING THE END OF THE
YEAR, COULD BE SOONER, COULD BE
LATER.
LATER. WE HAVE TO DO WHAT WE HAVE TO
DO.
DO. BY THE WAY, WE’RE NOT LIMITED
NOR WILL WE BE LIMITED BY McGAHN
AND THE OTHER PEOPLE I MENTIONED
ARE VERY KEY TO CONSIDERATION OF
AN IMPEACHMENT FOR OBSTRUCTION
OF JUSTICE AND ABUSE OF POWER,
ALL OF THE THINGS IN THE MUELLER
REPORT.
REPORT. BUT WE HAVE OTHER GROUNDS WE
HAVE TO LOOK INTO, TOO, AND
VIOLATIONS OF THE EMOLUMENTS
CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION.
AND JUST THE FACT OF WITHHOLDING
OR OPPOSING CONGRESSIONAL
SUBPOENAS, THAT WAS ARTICLE III
OF THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT.
AND HERE HE’S GONE WAY FURTHER
EVEN TO THE EXTENT OF SAYING
WE’LL OPPOSE ALL SUBPOENAS WHICH
IS ANOTHER WAY OF SAYING WE
DON’T RECOGNIZE THE SEPARATION
OF POWERS AND WE ARE GOING TO
AGGRANDIZE POWER TO THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH WHICH IS CORE
IMPEACHABLE, AND THERE ARE
OTHERS, TOO.
OTHERS, TOO. SO WE’LL BE LOOKING AT ALL OF
THESE THINGS.
THESE THINGS. >> HAVE YOU MADE DECISIONS IN
YOUR COMMITTEE OR HAVE YOU AS
CHAIRMAN MADE DECISIONS AS TO
WHAT THOSE GROUNDS ARE?
YOU JUST DESCRIBED SEVERAL.
HAS THAT BEEN THE PROCESS?
>> PEOPLE ARE OBVIOUSLY
SUGGESTING VARIOUS DIFFERENT
GROUNDS AND WE’LL HAVE TO
PRIORITIZE AND INVESTIGATE AND
MAKE DECISIONS AS THE NEXT FEW
MONTHS GO ON.
>> AND HOW DOES THAT PROCESS
WORK IN YOUR COMMUNITY?
>> WELL, THE MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE AND STAFF WILL TALK TO
EACH OTHER.
EACH OTHER. >> IN TERMS OF THIS BEING A
POINT OF DISCUSSION AND
CONSTERNATION ON HAVING A LOT OF
POLITICAL IMPACT, APART FROM THE
SUBSTANCE OF THESE POTENTIAL
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT THAT YOU
MAY BE LOOKING AT, THERE’S BEEN
SO MUCH DISCUSSION AS TO WHETHER
OR NOT THIS IS POLITICALLY WISE
FOR DEMOCRATS AND WHETHER
THERE’S POLITICAL APPETITE FOR
IT.
IT. HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI HAS
BEEN BROADLY DESCRIBED AS BEING
AGAINST THIS AS A STEP, AND
SHE’S DESCRIBED HERSELF THAT
WAY.
WAY. BROADLY SPEAKING.
BROADLY SPEAKING. CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT YOUR
DISCUSSIONS WITH THE SPEAKER ON
THIS AND WHETHER --
>> ALL I THINK I SHOULD SAY IS
THAT EVERY COURT FILING WE’RE
MAKING, EVERY ASSERTION THAT WE
NEED THIS INFORMATION FOR
IMPEACHMENT CONSIDERATION, ET
CETERA WERE SIGNED OFF ON BY THE
SPEAKER.
SPEAKER. THE HOUSE COUNSEL IS BRINGING
THESE LAWSUITS.
THESE LAWSUITS. THE HOUSE COUNSEL REPORTS TO THE
SPEAKER NOT TO THE CHAIRMAN OF
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
WE ASKED THE HOUSE COUNSEL WHAT
TO DO.
TO DO. I CAN’T TELL THEM WHAT TO DO.
SO THE SPEAKER IS GOING -- THE
SPEAKER WANTS TO VINDICATE THE
CONSTITUTION AND SHE’S BEEN VERY
DIRECT IN
DIRECT IN AND THE CONSTITUTION AND SO DO
WE.
WE. POLL
POLL THIS IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE
WORST CRISIS WE FACE IN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL LOSS SINCE AFTER
THE CIVIL WAR IN TERMS OF THE
POWER TO THE EXECUTIVE AND IN
TERMS OF DENIAL OF CONGRESSIONAL
POWER AND SEPARATION OF POWERS
IN TERMS OF THE PRESIDENT
ASSERTING POWERS HE DOESN’T HAVE
AND USING THEM.
WE HAVE TO HAVE LIMITED
GOVERNMENT.
GOVERNMENT. WE HAVE TO HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL
GOVERNMENT AND ONLY CONGRESS CAN
DO THIS SO WE HAVE TO DO THIS
AND THE SPEAKER UNDERSTANDS
THAT, AND WE WILL HAVE TO PURSUE
IT REGARDLESS OF THE POLITICAL
CONSEQUENCES, BUT OBVIOUSLY, WE
HAVE TO TAKE POLITICS INTO
ACCOUNT.
ACCOUNT. >> THE ANALYSIS THAT THE
PRESIDENT GETTING IMPEACHED
WOULD BE GOOD FOR THE PRESIDENT.
>> I DON’T THINK SO.
I DON’T THINK SO.
IF -- AGAIN, YOU -- IF WE DO OUR
JOB PROPERLY, IF WE GET THE
EVIDENCE, IF WE HAVE VERY
CONVINCING EVIDENCE AND
CONVINCING HEARINGS AND PEOPLE
UNDERSTAND WHAT’S AT STAKE, I
DON’T THINK THERE WILL BE
NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES FOR
PROTECTING THE CONSTITUTION.
>> IF YOU CAN STAY WITH US, MR.
CHAIRMAN, I WAS JUST MAKING FUN
OF YOU FOR YOUR COLLEAGUES FOR
THE LONG SUMMER VACATION.