HE WAS A COMMITTEE STAFF LAWYER WHICH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS
NOW PRETENDING IS UNPRECEDENTED.
THE NEWS DAY BEGAN WITH THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL REFUSING TO
SHOW UP TO TESTIFY TO THE HOUSE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. ITS NOT JUST THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL NOW WHO IS REFUSING TO
TESTIFY TO THE HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE.
COMMITTEE.
NOW PRESIDENT TRUMP TONIGHT IS
SAYING HE WONT ALLOW ANYONE WHO
HAS WORKED IN HIS ADMINISTRATION
TO TESTIFY.
EVEN IF THEYRE NO LONGER WORKING IN HIS ADMINISTRATION.
THAT MIGHT INCLUDE ROBERT
MUELLER.
MUELLER.
NBC NEWS IS REPORTING TONIGHT
THAT THE HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE HAS NOW BEGUN DISCUSSIONS DIRECTORY WITH
ROBERT MUELLERS TEAM ABOUT
COMING TO TESTIFY TO THE
COMMITTEE BUT NOTHING HAS BEEN
FINALIZED AT THIS POINT AND NO
DATE HAS BEEN SET.
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HAS BEEN
SEEKING ROBERT MUELLERS
TESTIMONY THROUGH THE NORMAL
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT PROCESS WHICH
REQUIRES THE PERMISSION OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL BUT THAT
PERMISSION MIGHT NEVER COME NOW. THE PRESIDENT TOLD FOX NEWS NOW.
THE PRESIDENT TOLD FOX NEWS TONIGHT THAT HE WILL TRY TO
BLOCK FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL
DON McGAHNS TESTIMONY TO THE
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
THE PRESIDENT SAID I DONT THINK
I CAN LET HIM, ESPECIALLY HIM
BECAUSE HE WAS A COUNSEL.
THE PRESIDENT FALSELY CLAIMED
THAT HE HAS GIVEN INVESTIGATORS
TOTAL TRANSPARENCY AND THEN HE SAID "ITS DONE."CY AND THEN HE
SAID "ITS DONE." >> SO IS IT DONE?
>> I WOULD SAY ITS DONE.
WEVE BEEN THROUGH THIS.
MOBE HAS EVER DONE WHAT IVE DONE.HAS EVER DONE WHAT IVE
DONE.
IVE GIVEN TOTAL TRANSPARENCY. ITS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE LIKE
THIS.
THIS.
>> CONGRESS SHOULD BE.
>> THEY SHOULDNT BE LOOKING ANYMORE.SHOULDNT BE LOOKING
ANYMORE.
THIS IS ALL -- ITS DONE.
>> THE ATTORNEY GENERAL REFUSED
TO TESTIFY TO THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TODAY
BECAUSE OF WHAT HE CALLED
"CHAIRMAN NADLERS INSISTENCE ON
HAVING STAFF QUESTION THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.TION THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CALLED THAT
UNPRECEDENTED.
AS I SAID LATER IN THIS HOUR,
WELL SHOW YOU A VIDEO HISTORY OF COMMITTEE STAFF ASKINGTORY
OF COMMITTEE STAFF ASKING QUESTIONS IN HEARINGS INCLUDING
PRESIDENT TRUMPS FAVORITE
LAWYER ROY COHN WHO ACTUALLY
BECAME A FAMOUS LAWYER WHO
DONALD TRUMP WANTED TO HIRE BECAUSE ROY COHN WAS ALLOWED TO
ASK QUESTIONS IN HIGH PROFILE
HEARINGS AS A STAFF ATTORNEY.
THERE WERE MORE CALLS FOR ATTORNEY GENERALS RESIGNATION
TODAY AND OUR FIRST GUEST
TONIGHT, CONGRESSMAN ERIC
SWALWELL HAS CALLED FOR HIS
IMPEACHMENT.
HE IS NOT THE FIRST MEMBER OF
THE HOUSE TO CALL FOR THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR TO BE
IMPEACHED.
IT THE HOUSE BANKING CHAIRMAN,
HENRY GONZALES, CALLED FOR THE
IMPEACHMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
WILLIAM BARR 27 YEARS AGO.
AND WILLIAM BARRS FIRST TOUR OF
DUTY AS ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR
REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT GEORGE H.W. BUSH.LICAN PRESIDENT GEORGE H.W.
BUSH.
WILLIAM BARR HAS BEEN THROUGH ALL OF THIS BEFORE ACCUSATIONS
OF DISHONESTY, ACCUSATIONS OF
BEING PART OF A COVER-UP, CALLS FOR HIS IMPEACHMENT.R-UP, CALLS
FOR HIS IMPEACHMENT.
THE PEOPLE WHO USHLED I HAVE
TRUMP TO CHOOSE BARR KNEW WOULD
KNOW HOW TO HANDLE IT ONCE
AGAIN.
DEMOCRATS CONTROLLED THE HOUSE
AND SENATE IN 1992 AND WERE
OUTRAGED AS BARRS HANDLING
AFTER INVESTIGATION OF THE
ADMINISTRATION WHICH INCLUDED AN INVESTIGATION OF THE CONDUCT OFN
INVESTIGATION OF THE CONDUCT OF THE FBI AND THE JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT.
SO WILLIAM BARR WAS ACTUALLY SUPERVISING THEN AN ACTUALLY
SUPERVISING THEN AN INVESTIGATION OF HIMSELF.
AS I REPORTED ON THIS PROGRAM RECENTLY, "NEW YORK TIMES"RAM
RECENTLY, "NEW YORK TIMES" COLUMNIST WILLIAM SAPPHIRE ON
OCTOBER 19th, 1992, CALLED
ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR THE COVER-UP GENERAL BECAUSE OF
THE WAY HE HANDLED THAT
INVESTIGATION.
WILLIAM SAPPHIRE WAS A CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN
CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN COLUMNIST IN THE "NEW YORK
TIMES" IN THOSE DAYS.
HE HAD WORKED AS A SPEECHWRITER
FOR RICHARD NIXON. EVEN WILLIAM SAPPHIRE WAS
ASTONISHED BY BARRS CONDUCT AS
ATTORNEY GENERAL. BUT IF BILL SAPPHIRE WAS STILL
WITH US TONIGHT, ED NOT BE
SURPRISED TO HEAR WHAT THE
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE SAID TODAY
ABOUT ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM
BARR. >> ITS DEADLY SERIOUS ABOUT IT.
AS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WAS NOT
TELLING THE TRUTH TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.
THATS A CRIME.
>> REMARKABLY AFTER THE SPEAKER
OF THE HOUSE SAID THATS A
CRIME, THE NEXT REPORTERS
QUESTION CHANGED CAN THE SUBJECT BUT MSNBCS KASIE HUNT KNEW AJECT
BUT MSNBCS KASIE HUNT KNEW A HISTORY-MAKING COMMENT BY A
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE WHEN SHE HEARD ONE AND TWO MINUTES LATER
KASIE HUNT WENT BACK TO THE
CRIME.
>> MADAM SPEAKER, DID THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL COMMIT A CRIME?
>> ELIED TO CONGRESS.
AND ANYBODY ELSE DID THAT, IT
WOULD BE CONSIDERED A CRIME.
NOBODY IS ABOVE THE LAW, NOT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,E
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND NOT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
BEING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DOES
NOT GIVE YOU A BATH TO GO SAY
WHATEVER YOU WANT.
AND IT IS THE THAT BECAUSE YOU
ARE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
>> SHOULD HE GO TO JAIL FOR IT. >> THERES A PROCESS INVOLVEDIT.
>> THERES A PROCESS INVOLVED HERE, AND AS I SAID, ILL SAY IT
AGAIN, AND THE COMMITTEE WILL
ACT UPON HOW WE WILL PROCEED.
>> POLITICO REPORTED TODAY IN A
CLOSED-DOOR SESSION WITH THE
DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES THIS MORNING,
SPEAKER PELOSI TOLD FLORIDA
CONGRESSMAN CHARLIE CRIST WE SAW
BARR COMMIT A CRIME WHEN HE
ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION.
HERE IS THE MOMENT THE SPEAKER
WAS TALKING ABOUT.
>> REPORTS HAVE EMERGED
RECENTLY, GENERAL, THAT MEMBERS OF THE SPECIAL COUNSELS TEAMERS
OF THE SPECIAL COUNSELS TEAM ARE FRUSTRATED AT SOME LEVEL
WITH THE LIMITED INFORMATION
INCLUDED IN YOUR MARCH 24th
LETTER THAT IT DOES NOT ADEQUATELY OR ACCURATELY
NECESSARILY PORTRAY THE REPORTS
FINDINGS.
FINDINGS.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT THEYRE
REFERENCING WITH THAT?
>> NO, I DONT.
>> NO ONE KNEW IT THEN BUT WE NOW KNOW THAT WILLIAM BARR WAS
IN POSSESSION OF A LETTER OF
COMPLAINT SIGNED BY SPECIAL
COUNSEL ROBERT MUELLER AND
ACCORDING TO WILLIAM BARRS
GUESSING YESTERDAY IN THE SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, THAT LETTER
WAS WRITTEN BY THE SPECIAL COUNSELS TEAM. THE SPECIAL
COUNSELS TEAM. >> YOU KNOW, THE LETTERS A BIT
SNITTY AND I THINK IT WAS PROBABLY WRITTEN BY ONE OF HIS
STAFF PEOPLE.
STAFF PEOPLE.
>> THAT WAS A MAJOR BLUNDER IN HIS UNDER OATH TESTIMONYDER IN
HIS UNDER OATH TESTIMONY YESTERDAY.
YESTERDAY.
BECAUSE WILLIAM BARR HAS BEEN
CLAIMING THAT BECAUSE CONGRESSMAN CRIST USED THE
PHRASE THE SPECIAL COUNSELS
TEAM, THAT DIDNT MEAN THE SPECIAL COUNSEL HIMSELF.E
SPECIAL COUNSEL HIMSELF. AND SO HE DID NOT HAVE TO REVEAL
THEN THAT HE WAS IN POSITION OF
POSSESSION IVE LETTER OF
COMPLAINT FROM THE SPECIAL
COUNSELS TEAM AS HE PUT IT.
BUT YOU JUST HEARD THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL SAY THAT HE BELIEVED THAT THAT LETTER WANE EVENED
THAT THAT LETTER WANE EVEN WRITTEN BY ROBERT MUELLER, JUST
SIGNED BY ROBERT MUELLER WHICH MEANS IT WAS THE PRODUCT IN THE
ATTORNEY GENERALS MIND AT THAT
TIME OF THE SPECIAL COUNSELS
TEAM.
THE WHITE HOUSE RELEASED A
LETTER TO WILLIAM BRARL FROM A
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL WHO IS DESIGNATED TO DEFEND THEIS
DESIGNATED TO DEFEND THE PRESIDENT IN INVESTIGATIONS.
THE LETTER WAS WRITTEN THE DAY
AFTER THE REDACTED MUELLER
REPORT WAS PUBLICLY RELEASED AND
AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE LETTER STRESSES THAT ALTHOUGH THETTER
STRESSES THAT ALTHOUGH THE PRESIDENT WAIVED EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE AND ALLOWED WHITE
HOUSE COUNSEL DON McCUBAN AND
OTHER MEMBERS OF HIS ADMINISTRATION TO VOLUNTARILY
TESTIFY TO THE SPECIAL COUNSEL,
THAT WAIVER OF EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE DOES NOT EXTEND TO ANY
OTHER INVESTIGATION.
THE PRESIDENTS LAWYERS LETTER SAYS HIS DECISION NOT TO THER
SAYS HIS DECISION NOT TO THE ASSERT PRIVILEGE IS NOT A WAIVER
OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE FOR ANY
OTHER MATERIAL OR FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE.TERIAL OR FOR ANY OTHER
PURPOSE.
HIS DECISION TO PERMIT
DISCLOSURE OF EXECUTIVE PORTIONS OF THE REPORT DOES NOT WAVE ANYS
OF THE REPORT DOES NOT WAVE ANY PROTECTIONS FOR THE SPECIAL
COUNSELS OFFICE UNDERLYING
INVESTIGATIVE MATERIALS SUCH AS
FBI FORM 302 WITNESS INTERVIEW
SUMMARIES AND PRESUMPTIVELY
PRINTED DOCUMENTS MADE AVAILABLE
TO THE SPECIAL COUNSELS OFFICE
BY THE WHITE HOUSE.
HIS DECISION DOES NOT AFFECT HIS
ABILITY AS PRESIDENT TO INSTRUCT
HIS ADVISERS TO DECLINE TO APPEAR BEFORE A CONGRESSIONAL
COMMITTEES TO ANSWER QUESTIONS
ON THESE SAME SUBJECTS.
LEADING OFF OUR DISCUSSION TONIGHT IS DEMOCRATICSSION
TONIGHT IS DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSMAN ERIC SWALWELL OF
CALIFORNIA, A MEMBER OF THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND THE
HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AND
HE IS ALSO A CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT. A CANDIDATE FOR
PRESIDENT.
CONGRESSMAN SWALWELL, I FIRST OF
ALL WANT TO GET YOUR REACTION TO
THE ATTORNEY GENERALS REFUSAL
TO TESTIFY TODAY.
>> GOOD EVENING, LAWRENCE. I BELIEVE ITS CLEAR WHY HE
DIDNT WANT TO COME IN.
HE HAS A LOT TO HIDE.
THIS ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS HAD THE SHOVELS OUT FINISHING OFF
THE BURIAL OF EVIDENCE TO
PROTECT THIS PRESIDENT.
HE WAS ALLOWED TO PLAY A HOME
GAME YESTERDAY ESSENTIALLY IN
FRONT OF A FRIENDLY SENATE WITH
CHAIRMAN GRAHAM, BUT TODAY HE
WAS FACING THE NEW MAJORITY THAT
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAD PUT IN
PLACE TO PUT THIS BALANCE OF
POWER ON THESE ABUSES OF POWER.
HE WASNT WILLING TO COME IN.
HELL STAND ON PROCESS
OBJECTIONS BUT THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE WILL JUDGE HIM BY WHETHER
HE SHOWED UP OR HE DIDNT. WHEN HE WAS SUPPOSED TO COME AND
TALK ABOUT WHAT THE RUSSIANS DID
IN OUR ELECTION AND WHO THEY WORKED WITH ON THE TRUMP TEAM,
THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, THE TRUMP
BUSINESSES HE WAS UNWILLING TO
DO THAT.
DO THAT.
AND HES GOING TO BE HELD
RESPONSIBLE AND ACCOUNTABLE FOR
THAT.
>> AND SO WHAT IS NEXT?
HOW IS HE GOING TO BE HELD
RESPONSIBLE?
>> WELL, IM URGING MY
COLLEAGUES TO MOVE FORWARD WITH
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS.
LAWRENCE, YOS TAKE THAT LIGHTLY. I CALLED ON HIM TO RESIGN AHTLY.
I CALLED ON HIM TO RESIGN A COUPLE WEEKS AGO.
IVE LONG BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT
HIS CONDUCT.
HIS CONDUCT.
FIRST, HE PREJUDGED THE
INVESTIGATION BEFORE HE EVEN GOT
THE JOB WITH THE LETTER THAT HE
SENT TO THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY
GENERAL.
SECOND, WHEN HE TOOK THE JOB, HE
ACCUSED FALSELY THE PRIOR
ADMINISTRATION OF SPYING ON THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.OF SPYING ON THE
TRUMP CAMPAIGN. THIRD, THE WAY THAT HE
MISCHARACTERIZED AT THE PRESS
CONFERENCE THE MUELLER FINDINGS
THAT THERE WAS NO COLLUSION WHEN
THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION
AND ALSO STATED THAT MUELLER WAS UNABLE TO FIND OBSTRUCTIONER WAS
UNABLE TO FIND OBSTRUCTION BECAUSE OF DIFFERENT THINGS THAT
MUELLER LAID OUT BUT DIDNT KNOW
THE THAT THE MUELLER NOTED THAT IT WAS THE OFFICE OF LEGAL THAT
IT WAS THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL FINDING THAT YOU CANT
INDICT A PRESIDENT WHICH ALSO
STOOD IN THE WAY.
FINALLY, LAWRENCE, JUST IN THE
LAST TWO WEEKS, FINDING OUT THAT HE LIED TO CONGRESSMAN CRIST AND
YESTERDAY, HE MISSED THE
DEADLINE WHEN WE ASKED HIM WHAT THE LAWFUL SUBPOENA TO DELIVERT
THE LAWFUL SUBPOENA TO DELIVER ACCOUNT DOCUMENTS OF THE MUELLER
REPORT.
TIME AFTER TIME, HES PROTECTED
THE PRESIDENT, ACED AS HIS LAWYER.SIDENT, ACED AS HIS
LAWYER.
ONLY WAY TO STOP THAT IS MOVE TO
IMPEACH AND ULTIMATE LITTLE
REMOVE HIM.
>> ISNT CONGRESS TAKING THE EYE
OFF THE BALL SINCE THE MUELLER REPORT IS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT?
WOULDNT IT BE A SIDETRACK TO GO
AFTER WILLIAM BARR?
>> WE HAVE TO DO ALL OF THAT.
WE HAVE TO CONTINUE TO
UNDERSTAND WHAT THE RUSSIANS ARE
DOING, HOLD ACCOUNTABLE THE
PERSON WHO WONT GIVE US THE
INFORMATION WE NEED.
AN EIGHTH OF THE MUELLER REPORT
IS REDACTED.
IF WERE GOING TO HOLD THE
PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE AND PUT
REFORMS IN PLACE SO THE RUSSIANS
CANT DO THIS, WE NEED TO SEE
THE FULL REPORT.
IF HES GOING TO BE A LIVE REALTIME OB STRUKTDER, WE HAVE
TO MOVE TO GET HIM OUT OF THE
WAY ESSENTIALLY SO WE CAN GET
WHAT WE NEED.
AGAIN, PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT
WELL, ARE YOU GOING TO IMPEACH
THE PRESIDENT?
IS THAT ON TABLE?
YES, OF COURSE, THATS ON THE
TABLE.
WERE LOOKING AT HIS CONDUCT
RIGHT NOW.
IF HE HAS SOMEONE WITHSTANDING
GUARD AND IS NOT FOLLOWING THE
LAW AND TURNING OVER THE
DOCUMENTS WE NEED, THEN WERE
NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET
THAT.
HES EFFECTIVELY ALLOWING THE PRESIDENT TO GET OFF SCOT-FREE.
HE NEEDS TO BE HELD ACCOUNT
CREDIBLE.
CREDIBLE.
>> A POINT RACHEL RAISED AT THE END OF HER HOUR.L RAISED AT THE
END OF HER HOUR. I DONT KNOW IF YOU HEARD THAT
ABOUT THE NEW STAFFING ON THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE THAT
YOURE A PART OF IT AND THE WAY
THE CHAIRMAN SCHIFF IS ADDING TO
THE STAFF OF THE COMMITTEE.
WHAT CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THAT
AND WHAT DOES IT MEAN IN.
>> THIS IS A STAFF WE NEEDED TWO
YEARS AGO, LAWRENCE.
THE REPUBLICANS IN THE THICK OF THIS INVESTIGATION RIGHT AFTERF
THIS INVESTIGATION RIGHT AFTER WE FOUND OUT ABOUT THE ATTACK
WOULD NOT ALLOW US TO ADD STAFF
OR INVESTIGATORS THAT WOULD LOOK
AT THE MONEY AND SO WE WERE IN A
HOLE FOR TWO YEARS.
BUT OUR COMMITTEE AND YOURE
STAFF STAFF WORKED HARD TO
ELEVATE THE ISSUE AND THE PUBLIC
AWARENESS.
NOW WE HAVE THESE EXPERTS ON THE
BEAT SO TO SPEAK.
WE ARE LOOKING AT THE FINANCIAL ASPECT OF THIS.AT THE FINANCIAL
ASPECT OF THIS. CHAIRMAN SCHIFF AND I AND OTHERS
SUSPECTED THAT MUELLER WAS NOT
ABLE TO LOOK AT THE FINANCIAL COMPROMISE OF THE PRESIDENTAL
COMPROMISE OF THE PRESIDENT WHICH AGAIN CALLS INTO QUESTION
WHETHER YOU CAN REALLY CHARGE
SOMEBODY OR NOT WITH THE
CONSPIRACY IF YOU DONT UNDERSTAND THE FINANCIAL
ENTANGLEMENTS.
ENTANGLEMENTS.
WE ARE CAN LEAGUE AT THOSE
EFFECTIVE TANGLEMENTS AND TAKING AN MRI TO THE FINANCIAL RECORDSG
AN MRI TO THE FINANCIAL RECORDS OF THE TRUMP FAMILY, BUSINESSES,
AND CAMPAIGN.
>> CONGRESSMAN ERIC SWALWELL,
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR STARTING
US OFF TONIGHT.
LATER IN THE HOUR WELL DO THE
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN INTERVIEW.
WERE JOINED BY CHUCK ROSENBURG,
A FORMER SENIOR OFFICIAL AT THE
FBI AND FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY.
HE WAS COUNSEL TO ROBERT MUELLER
AT THE FBI, AN MSNBC LEGAL
ANALYST.
WHEN I READ THIS LETTER TODAY FROM THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TO
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, I JUST
WANTED YOU ON THE PHONE
IMMEDIATELY.
SO THEYRE SAYING THAT EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS A WAIVER OF
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE TO ALLOW ALL
THESE WHITE HOUSE STAFF PEOPLE TO FREELY DISCUSS WHATEVER THE
SPECIAL PROSECUTOR ASKED ABOUT,
THAT WAIVER DOESNT EXTEND TO
ANY CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE,
DOESNT EXTEND ANYWHERE ELSE AT
ALL?
>> MR. FLOOD EMMET FLOOD, COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT WHO
WROTE THE LETTER, MAKES A PRETTY
NUANCED AND DIFFICULT ARGUMENT.
HE SAID THE PRESIDENT DECIDED NOT TO ASSERT THE PRIVILEGE BUT
THAT FAILURE TO ASSERT OR THE
DECISION NOT TO ASSERT THE
PRIVILEGE IS NOT THE SAME AS
WAIVING THE PRIVILEGE. SO ITS NOT A CRAZY ARGUMENT.
ITS NOT FRIVOLOUS, BUT I DONT
THINK IT PREVAILS.
THE BETTER ARGUMENT I THINK YOULL HEAR IT FROM THE OTHER
SIDE IS THAT IF YOU WAIVE AS TO
ONE, YOU WAIVE AS TO ALL.
BUT HERES THE PROBLEM.
IN ORDER TO GET TO THAT ANSWER,
ITS GOING TO HAVE TO BE LIT
GUYED AND YOU KNOW BETTER. >> WHATS THE TIMETABLEABLE?
OBVIOUSLY WHAT HAPPENS IS, THEY
SUBPOENA DON McGAHN AND THE
PRESIDENT SAYS NO EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.SAYS NO EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE.
AND THEN THAT GOES TO COURT.
THAT SUBPOENA IN EFFECT GOES TO
COURT.
HOW LONG DOES THAT TAKE TO WORK
IT OUT.
>> IT GOES TO A FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURT.
AND WHOEVER LOSES THERE WILL
INEVITABLY APPEAL TO THE COURT
OF APPEALS.
AND SOMEONE WILL LOSE THEREIN AN
METHEY MIGHT TAKE THE APPEAL TO
THE SUPREME COURT WHICH MAY OR
MAY NOT HEAR IT.
>> THREE MONTHS BETWEEN EACH
STAGE OR POSSIBLY MORE?
>> POSSIBLY MORE.
IT COULD BE 12 PLUS MONTHS. THATS PART OF THE STRATEGY,
RIGHT?
RIGHT?
SO YOU DONT HAVE TO ADVANCE A
WINNING ARGUMENT.
YOU JUST HAVE TO ADVANCE AN
ARGUMENT CREDIBLE ENOUGH TO
PROLONG THE PROCESS.
>> AND LITIGATION IS SOMETHING
DONALD TRUMP HAS ALWAYS USED AS A TACTIC WITHOUT NECESSARILY AS
A TACTIC WITHOUT NECESSARILY BELIEVING HE COULD EVEN WIN.
>> 100% RIGHT. WE SAW THAT TIME AND TIME AGAIN
WHEN IT WAS BUSINESS MAN DONALD
TRUMP IN MANHATTAN.
AND THERE OFTEN YOU HAD SOMEBODY
ON THE OTHER SIDE WHO COULDNT AFFORD TO WAGE THAT LEGALLDNT
AFFORD TO WAGE THAT LEGAL BATTLE.
BATTLE.
THAT WONT HAPPEN HERE.
BOTH SIDES WILL BE ABLE TO MOUNT
THEIR ARGUMENTS IN COURT.
BUT NEVERTHELESS, IF YOURE JUST TRYING TO RUN OUT THE CLOCK,UST
TRYING TO RUN OUT THE CLOCK, THIS IS A WAY TO DO IT.
>> YOUR REACTION TO THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL REFUSING TO SHOW UP AT THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEET
THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TODAY.
TODAY.
>> WE NEED TOE HEAR FROM OUR
ATTORNEY GENERAL.
WE ALSO NEED TO HEAR THE TRUTH
FROM OUR ATTORNEY GENERAL AND
THAT APPEARS TO BE TWO DIFFERENT
THINGS.
BUT I WAS DISAPPOINTED. THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAS A
CRITICAL ROLE IN THIS SOCIETY.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WHETHER YOU
LIKE HIM OR NOT AT ITS HELM AND
HE SHOULD BE THERE TO ANSWER
QUESTIONS IN THE PEOPLES HOUSE.
THATS PART OF HIS JOB.
I IMAGINE HE WILL GET THERE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. GET THERE ONE
WAY OR THE OTHER. THEY MAY NOT LIKE ONE ANOTHER
BUT HE HAS TO SIT IN THAT CHAIR
AND ANSWER QUESTIONS.
>> HE HAS TO BY TRADITION.
>> CORRECT.
>> BUT THE TRADITION DOES NOT
SEEM TO HOLD WITH PRESIDENT
TRUMP OR WITH THIS ATTORNEY
GENERAL NOW.
>> RIGHT, THE CONGRESS HAS A FEW
CARDS TO PLAY, FOR INSTANCE,
PURSE STRINGS.
THEY ARE THE APPROPRIATORS. THERE ARE THINGS THAT AORS.
THERE ARE THINGS THAT A DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE NEEDS FROM
A CONGRESS AND SO ONE WAY OR
ANOTHER, HES GOING TO HAVE TO GO THERE AND ANSWER THEIRE TO
GO THERE AND ANSWER THEIR QUESTIONS EVENTUALLY.
QUESTIONS EVENTUALLY.
>> BUT THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT
ECONOMIES.
WE ALREADY SAW HIM TESTIFY TO
THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE AND THATS A VERY DIFFERENTMITTEE AND
THATS A VERY DIFFERENT EXPERIENCE THAN TESTIFYING TO
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
>> THATS RIGHT.
I STILL PREDICT HE WILL SHOW UP
THERE EVENTUALLY.
IM JUST SORRY HE WASNT THERE
TODAY BECAUSE THESE ARE
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS JUST LIKE
THE LITIGATION WHICH WOULD DELAY
THE QUESTIONS TO WHICH WE NEED
ANSWERS, YOU WANT ANSWERS NOW.
AND YOU NEED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THERE NOW.TTORNEY
GENERAL THERE NOW.
THESE ARE TOO IMPORTANT TO PUT
OFF.
>> AND QUICKLY ROBERT MUELLERS
TESTIMONY, ARE WE -- ARE THEY
GOING TO BE ABLE TO BLOCK THAT?
>> SO AN INTERESTING QUESTION. IF ITS BOB MUELLER PRIVATEION.
IF ITS BOB MUELLER PRIVATE CITIZEN, OF COURSE HE CAN GO
TESTIFY.
TESTIFY.
HOWEVER, THERE ARE STILL
LIMITATIONS ON IT.
HE CANT TALK ABOUT GRAND JURY
INFORMATION, HE CANT TALK ABOUT CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.LK ABOUT
CLASSIFIED INFORMATION. HE CANT TALKING ABOUT ONGOING
MATTERS.
SO ONCE HES A PRIVATE CITIZEN,
HES WELCOME TO GO BUT HES
STILL NOT WELCOME TO TALK ABOUT
THINGS THAT ARE OTHERWISE