>>> THE QUESTION OF HOW TO HANDLE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO
YOU BELIEVE COMMITTED A CRIME.
>> IT JUST ISNT TRUE.
>> SHOULD HE GO TO JAIL FOR IT?
>> THERE IS A PROCESS INVOLVED
HERE AND AS I SAID, I WILL SAY
IT AGAIN, AND THE COMMITTEE WILL
ACT UPON HOW WE WILL PROCEED.
>> THAT WAS PELOSI SAYING BARR
LIED TO CONGRESS, BUT AVOIDING
THE QUESTION ABOUT JAIL TIME.
THEN THE PROVOCATIVE TAKE FROM
MY NEXT GUEST.
ROBERT REISCH WROTE BEFORE
BARRS TESTIMONY IS ONE REMEDY
IF HE DOES NOT COOPERATE WITH DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS COULDTH
DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS COULD INDEED BE ARRESTING HIM AND
PUTTING HIM IN JAIL.
ROBERT REISCH IS JOINING ME NOW.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR JOINING
ME HERE.
APPRECIATE IT.
YOU WROTE THAT BEFORE BARR TESTIFIED.THAT BEFORE BARR
TESTIFIED.
HAS YOUR VIEW CHANGED AT ALL? >> NO, JASMINE.HANGED AT ALL?
>> NO, JASMINE. HE REFUSES TO TESTIFY BEFORE THE
HOUSE.
HOUSE.
THERE IS NEGOTIATION GOING ON.
MAYBE HE WILL TESTIFY BEFORE THE HOUSE, BUT THERE IS AN OLDRE THE
HOUSE, BUT THERE IS AN OLD PRECEDENT IN THIS COUNTRY UNDER
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES, AFFIRMED BY THE SUPREME
COURT, THAT SAID THE HOUSE AND
THE SENATE HAS AN INHERENT POWER TO COMPEL A WITNESS TO TESTIFYER
TO COMPEL A WITNESS TO TESTIFY IF THAT WITNESS JUST REFUSES.
THAT INCLUDES ARREST.
IT EVEN INCLUDES JAIL.
WE FORGET THAT BECAUSE ITS BEEN
SUCH A LONG TIME. 1934 SINCE THAT HAPPENED.
ITS THERE AND THE SUPREME COURT
HAS AFFIRMED THAT AUTHORITY.
THE REASON I PUT THAT OUT THERE. THAT WAS EVEN BEFORE NANCYTHERE.
THAT WAS EVEN BEFORE NANCY PELOSI SAID WHAT SHE SAID TODAY.
WE HAVE TO THINK OF THIS IN
TERMS OF A CONSTITUTIONAL
CRISIS.
IF THE PRESIDENT AND THE ADMINISTRATION ARE STONEWALLING
AND SAY THERE WILL BE ABSOLUTELY
NO INFORMATION, NO TESTIMONY, NO
REPORT, NO MUELLER REPORT THAT
GOES TO THE HOUSE, THEN THE HOUSE IS POWERLESS UNLESS THE
HOUSE TAKES SOME ACTION.
>> IT SEEMS I HAVE TO SAY WITH
THE PEOPLE I HAVE BEEN SPEAKING
TO UNREALISTIC TO IMAGINE THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL BEING PUT IN HANDCUFFS AND BEHIND BARS. IN
HANDCUFFS AND BEHIND BARS. HERES WHAT YOU WROTE.
THE HOUSE CAN ORDER THE SERGEANT
AT ARMS TO ARREST THE OFFENDER
AND SUBJECT HIM TO A TRIAL AND IF JUDGED TO BE IN CONTEMPT,ND
IF JUDGED TO BE IN CONTEMPT, JAIL THAT PERSON UNTIL HE
APPEARS.
DO YOU THINK THIS IS A REALISTIC
SCENARIO OR JUST A THREAT?
>> THIS IS A REALISTIC THREAT,
BUT LET ME SAY WHY THIS IS
IMPORTANT.
OTHERWISE THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION CAN RUN OUT THE
CLOCK.
IN OTHER WORDS, CONGRESS COULD
DECIDE, THE HOUSE COULD DECIDE
TO HOLD THE WITNESS IN CONTEMPT,
WHICH IS CRIMINAL.
THEN IT WOULD JUST LANGUISH THROUGH THE COURTS AND BECAUSE
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT REALLY
RUNS THE SHOW, IT COULD TAKE
ANOTHER YEAR AND THEN THE CLOCK RUNS OUT.EAR AND THEN THE CLOCK
RUNS OUT.
THE WAY IT EXPEDITE THIS ISSUE
UP TO THE SUPREME COURT AND NOT
LET THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION RUN THE CLOCK IS ACT ON THEATION RUN
THE CLOCK IS ACT ON THE AUTHORITY THAT THE HOUSE HAS.
THEY ARE ENSHRINE IMMEDIATE A
CASE CALLED JOURNEY VERSUS
McCRACKEN, 1935. YOU LOOK BACK AT IT AND ITS
CLEAR THAT THE HOUSE COULD DO
THAT, BUT IN SO THREATENING, IT
WOULD AND EVEN IF YOU HAD A SERGEANT OF ARMS GO TO THEA
SERGEANT OF ARMS GO TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, I DOUBT THAT
THERE WOULD BE SUCH A CLASH, BUT
YOU HAVE TO FORCE THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION TO GET AN
INJUNCTION IN COURT AND THAT WOULD BE EXPEDITED UP TO THE
SUPREME COURT.
SUPREME COURT.
>> YOU SERVE IN THE CLINTON
ADMINISTRATION.
I WANT TO TAKE A LISTEN TO LINDSEY GRAHAM IN 1998 TALKING
ABOUT PRESIDENTS WHO DEFY
SUBPOENAS.
>> ITS YOUR JOB TO TELL US WHAT WE NEED.OUR JOB TO TELL US WHAT
WE NEED. IT IS YOUR JOB TO COMPLY WITH
THE THINGS WE NEED TO PROVIDE
OVERSIGHT OVER YOU.
THE DAY RICHARD NIXON FALLED TO
COMPLY TO THE SUBPOENA, HE TOOK
THE POWER FROM CONGRESS.
>> I BET HE CHANGED HIS TUNE
TODAY.
WE KNOW HE HAS.
COULD THE SAME ACTIONS APPLY NOW?D THE SAME ACTIONS APPLY
NOW?
>> OF COURSE.
EVEN SAM IRVIN.
THE WATERGATE COMMITTEE.
HE THREATENED AND VERY, VERY
EXPLICITLY.
ANYBODY FROM THE ADMINISTRATION,
INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT WHO DID
NOT SHOW UP FOR A SUBPOENA, HE
WAS THREATENING ARREST AT THAT
TIME BACK IN THE EARLY 70s UNDER WATERGATE.IN THE EARLY 70s UNDER
WATERGATE.
THIS IS NOT COMPLETELY OUT OF
THE QUESTION.
ALTHOUGH REPUBLICANS LIKE
LINDSEY GRAHAM WILL TALK ABOUT IT WHEN THEIR PERSON IS NOTOUT
IT WHEN THEIR PERSON IS NOT UNDER THE GUN.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS NECESSARY TO THREATEN BECAUSE
OTHERWISE AND THIS IS THE
IMPORTANT POINT, OTHERWISE THERE
IS NO POWER IN CONGRESS IN THE
HOUSE OR THE SENATE OR EACH CHAMBER SEPARATELY TO OVERSEE
WHAT THEY ARE DOING.
THE CONSTITUTION MAKES THESE
BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT COEQUAL
BRANCHES.
ITS NOT COEQUAL IF A PRESIDENT
CAN SAY FORGET IT, IM GOING TO
ORDER EVERYBODY TO REJECT ANY