>>> AS OF RIGHT NOW, 118 HOUSE DEMOCRATS, THAT’S MORE THAN HALF
OF THE 235-MEMBER CAUCUS EITHER
SUPPORTS IMPEACHMENT OR SUPPORTS
STARTING AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY
AGAINST THE PRESIDENT.
TODAY, THE HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE FILED A LAWSUIT TO
ENFORCE A SUBPOENA TO GET FORMER
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL DON McGAHN
TO TESTIFY ABOUT HIS TIME IN THE
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION. DEMOCRATS ON THE COMMITTEE VIEW
McGAHN AS A KEY FIGURE IN THE
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CASES
THAT ARE OUTLINED IN THE MUELLER
REPORT.
REPORT. THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IS
PREVENTING McGAHN FROM
TESTIFYING.
TESTIFYING. THERE IS A LOT OF CALLS FOR
OPENING AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY
THAT REVOLVE AROUND THAT
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CASE AS
WELL AS THE PRESIDENT’S
CORRUPTION, REPORTS OF HIM
PROFITING OFF THE PRESIDENCY AND
MORE.
MORE. BUT THERE IS A SCHOOL OF THOUGHT
THAT THE PRESIDENT’S RACIST
LANGUAGE ITSELF IS ENOUGH TO
TRIGGER IMPEACHMENT.
TRIGGER IMPEACHMENT. THAT’S THE THEORY PUT FORTH BY
TEXAS CONGRESSMAN AL GREEN, WHO
IN AN IMPEACHMENT RESOLUTION
VOTED DOWN LAST MONTH
SPECIFICALLY CITED TRUMP’S
COMMENTS ATTACKING FOR
DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSWOMEN OF
COLOR AS INVADERS, AS A HIGH
MISDEMEANOR WARRANTING
MISDEMEANOR WARRANTING IMPEACHMENT, TRIAL AND REMOVAL
FROM OFFICE.
FROM OFFICE. >> IN ALL OF THIS, THE
AFOREMENTIONED DONALD JOHN TRUMP
HAS BY HIS STATEMENTS BROUGHT
THE HIGH OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES IN
CONTEMPT, RIDICULE, DISGRACE,
AND DISREPUTE AND HAS COMMITTED
A HIGH MISDEMEANOR IN OFFICE.
>> JOINING ME NOW IS THAT
CONGRESSMAN, AL GREEN, DEMOCRAT
FROM TEXAS.
FROM TEXAS. CONGRESSMAN, DO YOU SEE
PRECEDENT IN THE U.S. AND
HISTORY FOR BRINGING ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT, ARTICLE OF
IMPEACHMENT AGAINST THE
PRESIDENT FOR THE KINDS OF
THINGS HE SAYS ROUTINELY, LIKE
YOU NOTED IN YOUR PREVIOUS
RESOLUTION?
RESOLUTION? >> WELL, THANK YOU FOR HAVING
ME.
ME. IF I MAY JUST SHARE THESE
THOUGHTS ABOUT THE INCIDENT.
>> PLEASE.
>> PLEASE. >> THAT HAS CAUSED A LOT OF
HARM.
HARM. I JUST WANT TO LET THE PEOPLE
KNOW IN BOTH CITIES THAT THEY
HAVE MY DEEPEST SYMPATHIES AND
MY PRAYERS, BUT I INTEND TO DO
MORE THAN GIVE PRAYERS AND
SYMPATHIES.
SYMPATHIES. I WANT TO MOVE TO IMPEACH THE
PRESIDENT.
PRESIDENT. TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, I
HAPPEN TO HAVE IN MY HAND THE
ACTUAL ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT
AGAINST ANDREW JOHNSON.
SO I WILL READ TO YOU WHAT IT
SAYS.
SAYS. AND IT’S VERY BRIEF BECAUSE IT’S
NOT A THEORY, IT IS FACT.
ANDREW JOHNSON WAS IMPEACHED FOR
DOING VERY MUCH THE SAME THING
THAT THIS PRESIDENT HAS DONE.
HERE’S WHAT IT READS.
THIS IS IN ARTICLE 10 OF THE
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.
IT SAYS THAT SAID ANDREW JOHNSON
HAS BROUGHT THE HIGH OFFICE OF
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES INTO CONTEMPT, RIDICULE,
AND DISGRACE TO THE GREAT
SCANDAL OF ALL GOOD CITIZENS
WHEREBY SAID ANDREW JOHNSON,
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
DID COMMIT AND WAS THEN AND
THERE GUILTY OF A HIGH
MISDEMEANOR IN OFFICE.
SO THE LANGUAGE THAT I’VE USED
IS LANGUAGE THAT THE FRAMERS
WOULD HAVE HAD ME USE AND IT’S
LANGUAGE THAT WAS USED WHEN
ANDREW JOHNSON WAS IMPEACHED BY
THE RADICAL REPUBLICANS.
WE NEED SOME RADICAL REPUBLICANS
AND DEMOCRATS WHO ARE WILLING TO
TAKE ON THIS PRESIDENT TO THE
SAME EXTENT THAT THE PERSONS IN
1868 TOOK ON ANDREW JOHNSON.
HE WAS IMPEACHED FOR HIS
BIGOTRY.
BIGOTRY. THAT WAS THE UNDERLYING REASON.
AND I READ TO YOU THE LANGUAGE
IN ARTICLE 10, WHICH WENT BEFORE
THE CONGRESS.
THE CONGRESS. IT WAS VOTED ON, AND HE WAS
IMPEACHED.
IMPEACHED. NOT CONVICTED, BUT IMPEACHED.
BUT THAT LEFT AN INDELIBLE STAIN
ON HIM.
ON HIM. HE COULD NOT GET RE-ELECTED AS A
RESULT THEREOF.
RESULT THEREOF. WE NEED TO DO THIS WITH THIS
PRESIDENT, MR. HAYES, BECAUSE IF
HE WE DON’T DO SO, WE WILL DENY
HISTORY WHAT IT RICHLY DESERVES,
AND THAT IS TO SAY THAT IN THIS
COUNTRY, WE WILL NOT ALLOW THE
LEVEL OF BIGOTRY THAT HE HAS
PERPETRATED AND THAT IS CAUSING
HARM TO SOCIETY.
WE KNOW THAT BIGOTRY KILLS NOW.
WE WON’T STAND FOR IT.
THEREFORE WE WILL IMPEACH HIM.
>> THAT’S INTERESTING.
PART OF WHAT I HEAR YOU SAYING
IS THAT THE PRESIDENT’S BEHAVIOR
AND HIS LANGUAGE -- WE’RE
TALKING A LOT ABOUT OBSTRUCTION
OF JUSTICE.
OF JUSTICE. WE’RE JUST NOW FOCUSING ON THIS.
AND I SHOULD NOTE THAT ANDREW
JOHNSON, THERE WERE 11 ARTICLES
OF IMPEACHMENT.
OF IMPEACHMENT. THIS ONE YOU’RE MENTIONING, THE
10th ARTICLE IS ABOUT WHAT HE
SAID AND THE KIND OF LANGUAGE HE
USED AND THE FEELINGS HE
INCITED.
INCITED. WHAT YOU’RE SAYING IS BASICALLY
THE PRESIDENT’S BIGOTRY AND THE
WAY HE TALKS HAS TO ESSENTIALLY
BE MARKED AT THIS MOMENT IN
HISTORY FOR ALL TO SEE
THROUGHOUT HISTORY AS BEING
ABERRANT, AS BEING OUTSIDE THE
BOUNDS OF PROPER DISCOURSE BY
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES.
STATES. >> ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
BUT I WOULD ALSO ADD THIS.
NOT ONLY DOES HE SIMPLY SPEAK IN
TERMS OF RACISM AND HOMOPHOBE
YARKS ISLAMOPHOBIA, CITIZEN
PHOBIA, ALL THE VARIOUS
INVIDIOUS PHOBIAS, HE ALSO
INFUSES IT INTO POLICY.
THE ISLAMIC BAN, THAT WAS POLICY
THAT HE TWEETED.
KICKING PERSONS WHO ARE
TRANS OUT OF THE MILITARY, THAT
WAS POLICY.
WAS POLICY. WHEN HE SAID THAT COMMENT OR
MADE THE COMMENT ABOUT THE
S-HOLE COUNTRIES, HE WAS AT THAT
TIME PRODUCING IMMIGRATION
POLICY, AND THEN WENT ON TO TRY
TO CREATE A POLICY THAT WOULD
HAVE MADE IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR
PERSONS TO COME FROM AFRICAN
COUNTRIES TO THE UNITED STATES.
>> BUT LET ME JUST RESPOND TO
THAT, BECAUSE THERE ARE MANY
LEGAL THEORISTS AND
CONSTITUTIONAL THEORISTS SAY
IT’S IMPORTANT IMPEACHMENT AND
THE BAR FOR IMPEACHMENT BE ABUSE
OF OFFICE.
OF OFFICE. FOR INSTANCE, THE PRESIDENT’S
DECISION TO SAY, RESCIND TPS FOR
HAITIANS, WHICH I THINK IS ONE
OF THE THINGS YOU’RE MAKING
MENTION TO, THE BAN ON
TRANSGENDER INDIVIDUALS SERVING
IN THE MILITARY, THOSE ARE
POLICY DIFFERENCES.
POLICY DIFFERENCES. THE BAR HAS TO BE HIGHER, CLEARS
SOME THRESHOLD OTHER THAN A
POLICY DISAGREEMENT.
POLICY DISAGREEMENT. >> WELL, FIRST OF ALL, IT
DOESN’T HAVE TO BE A HIGH CRIME
AND MISDEMEANOR, AS I HAVE
EVIDENCED WITH THIS ARTICLE 10.
>> RIGHT.
>> RIGHT. >> IT CAN BE A HIGH MISDEMEANOR.
AND SECONDLY, IT DOES NOT HAVE
TO BE A CRIME.
FEDERALIST 65, I HATE TO GET
INTO THE WEEDS.
>> SURE.
>> SURE. >> IN FEDERALIST 65 WE FIND THE
WORDS OF HAMILTON, THE WORDS OF
MADISON AND JON JAY.
AND THEY CALL TO OUR ATTENTION
THAT IT’S THE HARM THE PRESIDENT
CAUSES TO SOCIETY.
THE PRESIDENT IS COMPARABLE TO
THE CEO OF A MAJOR CORPORATION.
YOU CAN FIRE THE CEO OF A MAJOR
CORPORATION IF HE DOES HARM TO
THE CORPORATION.
THE CORPORATION. THE FRAMERS GAVE US THE ABILITY
TO FIRE A PRESIDENT IN MIDTERM.
>> RIGHT.
>> RIGHT. >> IMMEDIATELY UPON TAKING
OFFICE IF HE CAUSES HARM TO
SOCIETY.
SOCIETY. THAT’S WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT.
THAT’S WHAT WAS DONE AT ARTICLE
10.
10. AND THAT’S WHAT WE NEED TO DO
WITH THIS PRESIDENT.
>> CONGRESSMAN, I ALWAYS
APPRECIATE THE INCREDIBLE
THOUGHT THAT YOU HAVE PUT INTO