EVERYBODY KNEW THAT HE WAS CHARGED WITH A CRIME.
>> ALAN DERSHOWITZ DURING THE
CLINTON PROCEEDINGS IN 1998 SAYS
IT’S, QUOTE, CERTAINLY DOESN’T
HAVE TO BE A CRIME TO BE
IMPEACHABLE.
IMPEACHABLE. AND THEN NOW THAT HE’S ONE OF
PRESIDENT TRUMP’S IMPEACHMENT
ATTORNEYS TRYING TO EXPLAIN AWAY
THOSE INCONSISTENCIES.
THOSE INCONSISTENCIES. HE’S MORE RIGHT NOW, HE SAYS.
JOINING US NOW, THE CHAIRMAN OF
THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE,
DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSMAN JERRY
NADLER OF NEW YORK.
HE SERVES AS ONE OF THE
IMPEACHMENT PROSECUTORS.
IMPEACHMENT PROSECUTORS. ALSO WITH US, MSNBC CHIEF LEGAL
CORRESPONDENT AND HOST OF "THE
BEAT" ON MSNBC, ARI MELBER,
CLARE McCASKILL AND MIKE
BARNICLE ARE WITH US AS WELL AS
JOE, WILLIE AND ME.
>> CONGRESSMAN NADLER, ALAN
DERSHOWITZ LAYING IT OUT VERY
CLEARLY IN ’99 TO BE IMPEACHED
YOU DON’T HAVE TO COMMIT A
CRIME, AND YOU JUST -- MAYBE IT
JUST COMES DOWN TO AN ABUSE OF
POWER, AND -- WELL, THE LATEST
POLL SHOWS 6 IN 10 OF AMERICANS
BELIEVE THAT DONALD TRUMP ABUSED
HIS POWER.
HIS POWER. SHOULDN’T THAT BE ENOUGH TO MOVE
TOWARD IMPEACHMENT ON THE SENATE
SIDE, CONVICTION ON THE SENATE
SIDE?
SIDE? >> WELL, IT CERTAINLY SHOULD BE
ENOUGH.
ENOUGH. ABUSE OF POWER IS THE WORST
CRIME.
CRIME. WHEN THE CONSTITUTION WAS
WRITTEN, THERE WERE NO CRIMES
BECAUSE THEY HAD NOT PASSED ANY
CRIMES.
CRIMES. CONGRESS DIDN’T EXIST.
BRIBERY, FOR INSTANCE, WAS NOT
MADE A FEDERAL CRIME UNTIL 1837.
THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS EVERY
CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR, EVERYONE
KNOWS IF YOU READ THE FEDERALIST
PAPERS.
PAPERS. IF YOU READ THE DEBATES OF THE
CONSTITUTION CONVENTION, THEY
WERE TALKING ABOUT ABUSE OF
POWER AS THE WORST CONCEIVABLE
CRIME A PRESIDENT COULD COMMIT
TO BETRAY THE COUNTRY BY USING
THE POWER OF THE OFFICE OF
PRESIDENT FOR OTHER THAN THE
NATIONAL REASONS, FOR BETRAYAL
OR PERSONAL REASONS, OR TO
BETRAY THE COUNTRY TO A FOREIGN
POWER, THAT WAS THE WORST THING
THE FRAMERS COULD IMAGINE.
AND THAT’S WHAT’S INVOLVED HERE.
THE PRESIDENT SOUGHT TO GET A
FOREIGN POWER, UKRAINE INVOLVED
IN OUR ELECTIONS.
NOW, WHEN I SAW PROFESSOR
DERSHOWITZ’S COMMENT THAT YOU
HAVE TO HAVE A VIOLATION OF THE
CRIMINAL CODE TO BE IN ABUSE OF
POWER, TO BE CONSTITUTIONALLY
SUSPECT, TO BE CONSTITUTIONALLY
IMPEACHABLE, I THOUGHT HE WAS
MERELY IGNORANT.
MERELY IGNORANT. NOW THAT I SEE HIS 1999 QUOTE, I
KNOW HE’S LYING.
>> CHAIRMAN NADLER, YOU’RE SIDED
IN PRESIDENT TRUMP’S SENATE
TRIAL BRIEF WHICH OUTLINES THE
PRESIDENT’S DEFENSE ARGUMENTS.
ON PAGE THREE THE BRIEF SAYS
CONTRARY TO HOUSE DEMOCRATS’
CLAIMS ASSERTING LEGAL RIGHTS
AND CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGES OF
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH IS NOT
OBSTRUCTION.
OBSTRUCTION. IN 1998 NOW CHAIRMAN GERALD
NADLER AGREED THAT A PRESIDENT
CAN DMOT BE IMPEACHED FOR
ASSERTING A LEGAL PRIVILEGE.
THE USE OF A LEGAL PRIVILEGE IS
NOT ILLEGAL OR IMPEACHABLE BY
IT, A LEGAL PRIVILEGE, EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE.
PRIVILEGE. HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THAT?
>> HE’S TALKING APPLES AND
ORANGES.
ORANGES. THERE ARE LEGAL PRIVILEGES.
THE SUPREME COURT RULED IN THE
NIXON CASE SUCH A THING AS
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE EXISTS, BUT
THE SUPREME COURT ALSO RULED IN
THE SAME RULING THAT WHEN
ACCUSED OF A CRIME, THE
PRIVILEGE MUST GIVE AWAY.
IT DOESN’T EXIST.
BUT BEYOND THAT, THE ARTICLE 2
OF THE -- WE HAVE VOTED OF THE
IMPEACHMENT IS NOT THAT HE
ASSERTED PRIVILEGES.
ASSERTED PRIVILEGES. IT’S THAT HE COMPLETELY STONE
WALLED CONGRESS AND DENIED ALL
CONGRESSIONAL REQUESTS FOR
INFORMATION.
INFORMATION. HE SAID HE GAVE A DIRECTIVE AND
SAID TO EVERY DEPARTMENT NO ONE
MAY TESTIFY TO CONGRESS.
12 PEOPLE DEFIED HIS ORDERS AND
TESTIFIED BEFORE THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, BUT THE
FACT IS THAT IS OBSTRUCTION OF
CONGRESS.
CONGRESS. AND EVERY PRESIDENT NIXON’S
IMPEACHMENT ONE OF THE ARTICLES
WAS OBSTRUCTION.
WAS OBSTRUCTION. ONE OF THE ARTICLES WAS ABUSE OF
POWER.
POWER. IN FACT, EVERY PRESIDENT WHO HAS
EVER BEEN IMPEACHED, THE
ACCUSATION WAS ABUSE OF POWER.
AND HERE, I MEAN, THAT’S JUST A
NONSENSE POSITION THEY’RE
TAKING.
TAKING. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, IT’S WILLIE
GEIST.
GEIST. GOOD TO SEE YOU THIS MORNING.
I THINK YOU AND WE ALL KNEW
COMING IN UNDER MITCH
McCONNELL’S RULES OF THE TRIAL
THERE WOULD BE A VOTE TO SEE IF
THERE’S NEW WITNESSES ALLOWED IN
THE SENATE TRIAL.
WHAT WAS MORE SURPRISING WHEN
THE RULES WERE PRESENTED
YESTERDAY, WAS MITCH McCONNELL
WANTS A QUESTION ON INTRODUCING
THE TESTIMONY AND DOCUMENTS THAT
ALREADY EXISTED IN THE HOUSE AND
BRINGING THEM INTO THE SENATE
TRIAL SO YOU MAY NOT EVEN HAVE
THAT EVIDENCE BEFORE YOU IN THE
SENATE.
SENATE. WHAT’S YOUR REACTION TO THAT?
>> MY REACTION IS IT’S MORE OF
THE SAME.
THE SAME. AND THE SAME IS THAT MITCH
McCONNELL AND APPARENTLY MOST OF
THE REPUBLICANS OR MANY OF THEM,
WANT TO SUBVERT THE CONSTITUTION
AND TO BETRAY THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE BY SAYING YOU CAN’T HAVE
A FAIR TRIAL OR ANY TRIAL,
REALLY, WHEN THE HOUSE HAS
IMPEACHED THE PRESIDENT.
ANYBODY KNOWS, ANY INTELLIGENT
PERSON KNOWS THAT IF SOMEONE IS
ACCUSED OF A CRIME, WHETHER IT’S
ROBBING A BANK OR SUBVERTING THE
CONSTITUTION, YOU BRING IN ALL
RELEVANT WITNESSES.
RELEVANT WITNESSES. YOU BRING IN ALL THE WITNESSES
IN PROSECUTION, IN DEFENSE, AND
FOR THE AGENTS OF THE DEFENDANT
IN THIS CASE McCONNELL AND
COMPANY, TO SEE WE WON’T PERMIT
WITNESSES IS TO SAY WE WON’T
HAVE A FAIR TRIAL AND WE ARE
BETRAYING THE CONSTITUTION.
>> BUT IT’S NOT JUST WE WON’T
BRING IN NEW WITNESSES.
IT’S WE WON’T BRING IN THE
EVIDENCE WE ALREADY SAW IN THE
HOUSE INTO THE SENATE TRIAL.
WE WON’T LET THE OLD EVIDENCE
IN.
IN. FORGET THE NEW EVIDENCE.
>> RIGHT.
>> RIGHT. THAT’S PART OF THE WHITE HOUSE’S
NEW ATTACK ON THE VALIDITY ON
THE MATERIAL IT FOUND.
THANK YOU FOR JOINING US ON A
BUSY DAY FOR YOU.
APPRECIATE IT.
APPRECIATE IT. SO TWO FOLLOWUP POINTS HERE ON
WHAT YOU’RE SAYING BECAUSE THE
NEWS BREAKING OVERNIGHT IS THE
McCONNELL RULES.
McCONNELL RULES. AS DISCUSSED, TWO OF THE
CONTROVERSIAL CHANGES IS NOT
NECESSARILY AUTOMATICALLY
NECESSARILY AUTOMATICALLY INCLUDING THE MATERIAL FROM THE
HOUSE AND REALLY RAISING THE BAR
FOR EVEN HAVING THE SENATE
DELIBERATE AND DECIDE ON WHETHER
TO ADD WITNESSES.
MY QUESTION ON THE RULE CHANGES
IS NUMBER ONE, IS THERE ANY
ACTUAL FORMAL RESULT OR
CONSEQUENCE OF NOT HAVING THAT
MATERIAL, UNQUOTE, IN THE
RECORD, OR DOES IT NOT
MATERIALLY CHANGE THE DEBATE
YOU’RE ABOUT TO HAVE, AND NUMBER
TWO, HOW DO YOU VIEW THE ATTEMPT
TO MAKE IT HARD TORE BRINGER TO
WITNESSES.
WITNESSES. DEPENDING ON HOW YOU READ THE
RULES MAY OR MAY NOT ALLOW FOR
INDIVIDUALS TO CALL FOR
INDIVIDUAL WITNESS VOTES.
YOUR VIEW?
YOUR VIEW? >> THIS IS JUST MORE OF -- MORE
WAYS IN WHICH SENATOR McCONNELL
IS TRYING TO PREVENT THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM SEEING THE
TRAVESTY THAT HE WANTS TO
PERPETRATE.
PERPETRATE. THEY DON’T WANT TO ALLOW ANY
EVIDENCE IN FRONT OF THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE.
AMERICAN PEOPLE. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE WAS ALREADY
OFFERED IN THE HOUSE OR IS NEWER
EVIDENCE IS NOT THE POINT.
THEY WANT TO STOP ALL EVIDENCE
FROM BEING SEEN BY THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE, FROM BEING SEEN ON
TELEVISION, FROM BEING
PRESENTED, BECAUSE THEY’RE
COVERING UP FOR THE PRESIDENT.
THEY’RE NOT PREVENDING TO HAVE
A -- PRETENDING TO HAVE A TRIAL
AS THE CONSTITUTION DEMANDS.
THEY’RE JUST COVERING UP FOR THE
PRESIDENT, PERIOD.
PRESIDENT, PERIOD. IT’S MORE OF THE SAME AND IT’S