INTO THE POTENTIAL DANGERS OF THE PRACTICE OF FLARING, NATURAL
GAS IN TEXAS.
WE BEGIN TONIGHT WITH THE
BREAKING NEWS, THE TRUMP JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT HEADED BY THE TRUMP
ATTORNEY GENERAL, WILLIAM BARR,
TOLD A FEDERAL COURT IN
WASHINGTON TONIGHT THAT THE
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SHOULD
BE DENIED ANY ACCESS TO GRAND
JURY MATERIAL FROM THE MUELLER
INVESTIGATION BECAUSE
INVESTIGATION BECAUSE IMPEACHMENT IS NOT A JUDICIAL
PROCEEDING ACCORDING TO THE
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT FILING IN
COURT NOTES THAT GRAND JURY
MATERIAL CAN BE RELEASED IN
CONNECTION WITH A JUDICIAL
PROCEEDING.
PROCEEDING. THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT THEN
INSISTS, QUOTE, IMPEACHMENT
PROCEEDINGS IN CONGRESS,
INCLUDING HYPOTHETICAL REMOVAL
PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE, ARE
NOT JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER
THE PLAIN AND ORDINARY MEANING
OF THAT TERM.
JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS ARE LEGAL
PROCEEDINGS GOVERNED BY LAW THAT
TAKE PLACE IN A JUDICIAL FORM
BEFORE A JUDGE OR MAGISTRATE,
PROCEEDINGS OUTSIDE THE JUDICIAL
SETTING ARE NOT JUDICIAL
PROCEEDINGS EVEN IF THEY ARE
CALLED A TRIAL AND INCLUDE SOME
OF THE PROCEDURES FAMILIAR FROM
A COURTROOM SUCH AS SWORN
TESTIMONY OR LAWYER-LED
QUESTIONING OF WITNESSES.
THE COMMITTEE FOR ITS PART
OFFERS NO EXPLANATION FOR HOW
RULE REFERENCE TO JUDICIAL
PROCEEDINGS AUTHORIZES
PROCEEDINGS AUTHORIZES ADMINISTERED BY MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS.
CONGRESS. YESTERDAY THE HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE ON A PARTY LINE VOTE
VOTED FOR A RESOLUTION FOR
INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURES OFFERED
BY CHAIRMAN GERALD NADLER.
THAT RESOLUTION DESCRIBES IN
DETAIL THE PROCEDURES THE
COMMITTEE WILL USE IN WHAT IT
CALLS THE COMMITTEE’S
INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE
WHETHER TO RECOMMEND ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT WITH RESPECT TO
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP.
LEADING OUR DISCUSSION TONIGHT,
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE, JERRY NADLER.
CHAIRMAN, THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
SEEMS TO BE MAKING TWO CASES
HERE.
HERE. FIRST OF ALL, THAT THIS IS NOT A
JUDICIAL PROCEEDING IN YOUR
COMMITTEE, THEREFORE, YOU DO
HAVE A RIGHT TO THIS.
SECOND, EVEN IF IT WAS A
JUDICIAL PROCEEDING, INTERPRETED
THAT WAY, YOU STILL DON’T HAVE A
RIGHT TO IT, EVEN IF IT WENT TO
TRIAL, EVEN IF IT WENT TO A
SENATE TRIAL, YOU DON’T HAVE
HAVE A RIGHT TO ANY OF THIS
MATERIAL.
MATERIAL. THEY’RE SAYING THAT YOU AREN’T
EVEN HAVING AN IMPEACHMENT
INVESTIGATION, THERE ISN’T, THEY
INSIST, THERE IS NO IMPEACHMENT
INVESTIGATION IN THE HOUSE.
>> WELL, LET ME DEAL WITH THAT
IN REVERSE ORDER.
WE’VE BEEN VERY CLEAR FOR THE
LAST SEVERAL MONTHS IN COURT
FILINGS, IN PUBLIC STATEMENTS,
AND IN PROCEEDINGS IN THE
COMMITTEE THAT WE ARE, IN FACT,
CONDUCTING AN INVESTIGATION,
PREPARING TO DECIDE WHETHER TO
RECOMMEND ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT TO THE HOUSE.
NOW, YOU CAN CALL THAT AN
IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION,
IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION, IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, THOSE TERMS
HAVE NO LEGAL MEANING.
BUT THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT WE’RE
DOING.
DOING. WE’RE INVOLVED IN AN
INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE
WHETHER TO RECOMMEND ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT TO THE HOUSE.
WE WILL DETERMINE THAT AT THE
CONCLUSION OF THIS
INVESTIGATION.
INVESTIGATION. NOW, I KNOW THE REPUBLICANS AND
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IS ACTING
AS AN ARM OF THE REPUBLICAN
PARTY.
PARTY. MOST IMPEACHMENTS DONE SINCE THE
REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1946 HAVE
BEGUN IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
HAVE NOT HAD HOUSE
AUTHORIZATIONS AT ALL.
THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT HAD A
HOUSE OF AUTHORIZATION SIX
MONTHS AFTER THE INVESTIGATION
STARTED IN THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE, AND THAT WAS DONE AS
WAS THE CLINTON HOUSE
AUTHORIZATION IN ORDER TO GIVE
COMMITTEE THE RIGHT TO DO
CERTAIN KINDS OF SUBPOENAS AND
DEPOSITIONS.
DEPOSITIONS. THE HOUSE RULES CHANGED, WE HAVE
THAT AUTHORITY WITHOUT SPECIFIC
RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSE.
THERE’S NO QUESTION THAT WE ARE
DOING AN INVESTIGATION TOWARD
DETERMINING WHETHER TO RECOMMEND
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.
THE SECOND ARGUMENT THEY MAKE IS
THAT THAT DOESN’T QUALIFY AS A
JUDICIAL PROCEEDING, THEREFORE,
WE’RE NOT ENTITLED TO GRAND JURY
INFORMATION.
INFORMATION. THIS IS ANOTHER INSTANCE OF THE
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION TRYING TO
COVER UP AND HIDE FROM CONGRESS
AND FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, IN
THIS CASE FROM CONGRESS BECAUSE
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WOULDN’T
STEE GRAND JURY INFORMATION, ALL
KINDS OF INFORMATION.
THE PRESIDENT SAID HE WOULD DEFY
ALL SUBPOENAS, WHICH THEY HAVE
DONE.
DONE. THAT WAS ARTICLE 3 OF THE NIXON
IMPEACHMENT TO FIND SUBPOENAS.
THE LAW SAYS THAT OOP UPON
REQUEST BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE, THE
DEPARTMENT, THE IRS SHALL GIVE
TAX RETURNS FOR ANY INDIVIDUAL.
THEY HAVE REFUSED TO DO SO.
THEY HAVE SAID THEY HAVEN’T
SHOWN ADEQUATE PURPOSE.
THAT’S NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS.
THEY’RE JUSTIFYING ALL THE LAW
IN ORDER TO HIDE EVERYTHING FROM
CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE.
PEOPLE. NOW, THEIR EXCUSE HERE THAT THIS
IS NOT A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING,
THERE IS JUDICIAL PRECEDENT FOR
CALLING FOR CONSIDERING
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING EITHER
JUDICIAL PROCEEDING OR
PREPARATORY JUDICIAL PROCEEDING
BUT I’LL LET THE DETAILS GO TO
THE LEGAL -- TO THE REPLY BRIEF
THAT WILL BE FILED THIS WEEK.
>> IN THE NIXON CASE, IT WAS
ORDERED GRAND JURY MATERIALS
HANDED TO YOUR COMMITTEE.
THAT’S ONE OF THE PRECEDENTS
YOU’RE REICHLYING ON.
THEY USE WHAT IN COURTROOM TERMS
WOULD BE CALLED EXTRAJUDICIAL
COMMENT, MEANING THEY USE
STATEMENTS THAT SPEAKER PELOSI
HAS MADE WHEN TALKING TO
REPORTERS OR TRYING TO EXPLAIN
SITUATION TO THE AMERICAN
PUBLIC.
PUBLIC. THEY USE THAT IN THESE FILINGS
TO SAY -- TO TRY TO SAY THERE
ISN’T AN OFFICIAL PROCEEDING
GOING ON.
GOING ON. THEY SAY THE SPEAKER OF THE
HOUSE SAYS IT IS NOT A TRUE
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING ON THE
SAME DAY THE HOUSE ADOPTED THE
RESOLUTION THAT THE COMMITTEE
CLAIMS AUTHORIZED THIS SUIT, THE
SPEAKER TOLD A REPORTER THE
HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS WAS NOT
EVEN CLOSE TO AN IMPEACHMENT
INQUIRY.
INQUIRY. >> THAT WAS BACK IN JUNE.
THE HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS
DOESN’T DO AN IMPEACHMENT
INQUIRY.
INQUIRY. SECOND OF ALL, THE SPEAKER HAS
BEEN VERY SUPPORTIVE OF EVERY
STEP WE’VE TAKEN IN INITIATING
THIS IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION.
EVERY CORRESPONDENTURT FILING, E
STATEMENT, OFFICIAL STATEMENT IN
THE COMMITTEE WAS OKAYED BY HER
AT THE TIME.
THE HOUSE COUNSEL WHO PREPARES,
MAKES ALL THE LEGAL FILINGS ON
BEHALF OF THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE REPORTS TO THE
SPEAKER, NOT TO THE CHAIRMAN OF
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
SHE’S BEEN FULLY SUPPORTIVE OF
EVERY STATEMENT WE HAVE MADE AND
OF THE INITIATION.
EVEN THE PROCEDURES THAT THE
COMMITTEE VOTED, WHICH INCLUDED
IN THE PREAMBLE A HISTORY OF HOW
THIS INVESTIGATION STARTED, AND
OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE
HOUSE BACK IN JUNE AUTHORIZING
SUBPOENAS AND OTHER THINGS, AND
THE ACCOMPANYING REPORT WHICH
SAYS, AMONG OTHER THINGS, IN
ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER TO
RECOMMEND ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT TO THE HOUSE, ALL OF
THAT WAS DONE WITH THE SPEAKER’S
APPROVAL AND DIRECT INVOLVEMENT.
>> THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT FILING
SAYS THAT THE COMMITTEE DOES NOT
KNOW WHETHER IT’S GOING TO HAVE
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT OR VOTE
ON ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT OF
THE PRESIDENT.
THE PRESIDENT. THE COMMITTEE MIGHT END UP WITH
JUST A CENSURE OR NOT TAKE
ACTION.
ACTION. >> THAT’S LIKE SAYING YOU
SHOULDN’T SHOW EVIDENCE TO THE
JURY BECAUSE THE JURY HASN’T
MADE UP ITS MIND AT THE
BEGINNING OF THE TRIAL.
OF COURSE WE HAVEN’T DETERMINED
YET WHETHER TO RECOMMEND
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.
THAT’S WHY WE’RE HAVING THIS
INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THE EVIDENCE IS
SUFFICIENT AND IMPORTANT ENOUGH
TO JUSTIFY THE RATHER
EXTRAORDINARY STEP OF VOTING
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.
ONE CAN HAVE ONE’S PERSONAL
OPINIONS AS TO THE QUALITY OF
THAT EVIDENCE, BUT YOU DON’T
ANNOUNCE THE CONCLUSION AT THE
BEGINNING OF THE TRIAL OR
PROCEEDING.
PROCEEDING. >> ATHE JUDGE ORDERED THE GRAND
JURY MATERIAL HANDED OVER TO THE
COMMITTEE BEFORE THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE DECIDED THAT IT WAS
GOING TO VOTE ON ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT.
IMPEACHMENT. AND ALSO THE COMMITTEE DIDN’T
NECESSARILY KNOW WHETHER THE
VOTE ON ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT
WOULD PASS.
WOULD PASS. >> OF COURSE NOT.
A PROPER INVESTIGATION, A PROPER
PROCEEDING TO DETERMINE WHETHER
TO RECOMMEND ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT, WHETHER BY THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IN 1973 AND
74 WITH RESPECT TO NIXON OR NOW,
YOU DON’T START OFF WITH A
CONCLUSION.
CONCLUSION. YOU MAY HAVE PERSONAL OPINIONS.
BUT YOU DON’T START OF WITH AN
OFFICIAL CONCLUSION.
OFFICIAL CONCLUSION. YOU EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE AND YOU
MAKE A CONCLUSION.
NOW, I THINK PERSONALLY THE
EVIDENCE IS VERY STRONG, BUT
THAT’S MY PERSONAL OPINION AT
THE MOMENT.
THE MOMENT. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A VERY
AGGRESSIVE SERIES OF HEARINGS
STARTING NEXT TUESDAY TO BRING
OUT THE WITNESSES.
AND WE’RE GOING TO GO WELL
BEYOND THE PARAMETERS OF THE
MUELLER REPORT.
MUELLER REPORT. IT’S NOT JUST THE QUESTION OF
COLLUSION WITH THE RUSSIANS IN
THE ELECTION AND THE QUESTION OF
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, WHICH I
THINK IS VERY CLEARLY INDICATED
IN THE MUELLER REPORT.
BUT THE QUESTION OF SELF-DEALING
AND SELF-ENRICHMENT THAT
AMERICAN TAXPAYER MONEY IS GOING
DIRECTLY TO THE POCKET OF THE
PRESIDENT THAT APPARENTLY SAUDI
MONEY IS GOING DIRECTLY TO THE
POCKETS OF THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE
ALL OF THIS IN DIRECTION
VIOLATION OF THE EMOLUMENTS
CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION
BECAUSE OF THE VERY CORRUPT
ACTIONS WHERE YOU DIRECT THE AIR
FORCE TO USE THE TRUMP HOTEL OR
FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS SEEKING TO
INFLUENCE UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT HAVE THEIR
DELEGATIONS STAY AT TRUMP
HOTELS, WHICH HE HASN’T DIVESTED
HIMSELF OF AN INTERESTED IN,
WHICH MEANS MONEY DIRECTLY INTO
HIS POCKET.
HIS POCKET. WE HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK AT HIS
FAILURE TO DEFEND.
I MEAN THERE’S PLENTY OF
EVIDENCE THAT MUELLER TESTIFIED
TO THIS, SENATOR COATES, FORMER
DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL
INTELLIGENCE, THAT WE’RE UNDER
ATTACK NOW IN TERMS OF OUR
ELECTION AND THEY EXPECT THEM TO
INTERVENE NEXT YEAR.
HAD THE PRESIDENT DONE ANYTHING
TO CARRY OUT HIS OATH TO PROTECT
AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION, TO
SEE THAT THE LAWS AGAINST
ELECTION INTERFERENCE ARE
PROTECTED?
PROTECTED? THE FACT THAT HE HAS DEFIED ALL
CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS IS AN
OBSTRUCTION OF THE WORK OF
AGGRESSION.
AGGRESSION. THE CENTRAL PURPOSE OF
IMPEACHMENT IS NOT TO PUNISH
CRIMES.
CRIMES. THE CENTRAL PURPOSE AS DESCRIBED
BY THE FEDERALIST PAPERS ET
CETERA IS TO PREVENTIVE
AGGRANDIZEMENT OF POWER BY THE
PRESIDENT, TO PROTECT LIBERTY,
THE SEPARATION OF POWERS, TO
PREVENT THE PRESIDENT FROM
ASSUMING POWER OVER THE CONGRESS
AND OVER THE JUDICIAL BRANCH.
HIS COMPLETE SUBVERSION OF THIS
BY REFUSING ALL INFORMATION TO
CONGRESS AND EVEN THIS BRIEF
COULD BE READ AS PART OF THAT,
THAT WAS ARTICLE 3 IN THE NIXON
IMPEACHMENT, AND NIXON DIDN’T GO
SO FAR AS TO SAY HE WOULD OPPOSE
ALL SUBPOENAS AS THIS PRESIDENT
HAS SAID HE WOULD DO AND HAS
DONE.
DONE. I THINK THERE’S VERY, VERY
SERIOUS REASONS.
SERIOUS REASONS. SOME PEOPLE SAY, BY THE WAY, WHY
SHOULD WE IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT,
THE SENATE WOULD NEVER CONVICT
ANYWAY.
ANYWAY. I THINK IT’S VERY IMPORTANT THAT
THIS KIND OF CONDUCT, IF YOU CAN
PROVE IT, BE CALLED OUT, THAT
THE CONSTITUTION MUST BE
VINDICATED, AND THAT A
PRESIDENT -- AND THE NEXT
PRESIDENT AND THE ONE AFTER HIM
OR HER HAS TO KNOW YOU CAN’T DO
THIS SORT OF THING.
YOU HAVE TO PROTECT THE
INSTITUTIONS OF GOVERNMENT SO
THAT POWERS AREN’T CENTRALIZED
SO YOU DON’T GET TO A
DICTATORSHIP.
DICTATORSHIP. >> IS STORMY DANIELS GOING TO BE
A WITNESS IN FRONT OF YOUR
COMMITTEE?
COMMITTEE? >> I DON’T KNOW SHE WILL BE, BUT
THE MISUSE OR THE PAYMENTS TO
THE WOMEN, TO STORMY DANIELS AND
FORGET THE NAME OF THE OTHER
WOMAN, TO PREVENT THAT
INFORMATION FROM COMING OUT IN
ORDER TO INFLUENCE ELECTION IS