>>> TODAY CHAIRMAN ADAM SCHIFF SAID THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY
WILL NOT WAIT FOR JUDGES TO
ORDER TRUMP ADMINISTRATION
OFFICIALS TO TESTIFY.
INSTEAD, CHAIRMAN SCHIFF AND THE
IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATIVE
IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEES WILL TREAT THE
REFUSAL TO TESTIFY AS
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS, WHICH
COULD THEN BECOME AN ARTICLE OF
IMPEACHMENT AGAINST DONALD
TRUMP.
TRUMP. >> THIS WILL BE FURTHER EVIDENCE
OF AN EFFORT BY THE
ADMINISTRATION TO OBSTRUCT THE
LAWFUL AND CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES
OF CONGRESS.
OF CONGRESS. THIS WILL ONLY FURTHER ADD TO
THE BODY OF EVIDENCE ON A
POTENTIAL OBSTRUCTION OF
CONGRESS CHARGE AGAINST THE
PRESIDENT.
PRESIDENT. I WILL SAY THIS.
IT’S QUITE OBVIOUS AND WE FULLY
EXPECTED THIS.
EXPECTED THIS. WE HAVE SEEN A SERIOUS OF
SHIFTING, EVER CHANGING
RATIONALES FOR THIS CAMPAIGN OF
OBSTRUCTION.
OBSTRUCTION. >> JOINING US NOW IS LAURENCE
TRIBE, HARVARD LAW PROFESSIONAL,
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. I WANT TO GET YOUR REACTION TO
WHAT CHAIRMAN SCHIFF IS SAYING
THERE, ESPECIALLY SINCE YOU ARE
THE CO-AUTHOR OF THE BOOK, "TO
END THE PRESIDENCY, THE POWER OF
IMPEACHMENT.""
IMPEACHMENT."" IS THIS A POSSIBLE WAY TO GO, TO
SIMPLY SAY THEY’RE REFUSING TO
TESTIFY RATHER THAN TRY TO PUSH
THIS THROUGH THE COURTS AND TAKE
MONTHS TO GET AN ORDER TO
TESTIFY.
TESTIFY. WE’RE SIMPLY GOING TO TREAT THIS
AS AN ON INSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS
AND POSSIBLY CREATE AN ARTICLE
OF IMPEACHMENT OUT OF THIS
BEHAVIOR.
BEHAVIOR. >> I THINK CHAIRMAN SCHIFF IS
EXACTLY RIGHT.
EXACTLY RIGHT. IT’S EXACTLY THE WAY TO GO.
THERE IS NO REASON TO DRAG
THINGS OUT IN THE COURTS.
THE PRESIDENT OF RICHARD NIXON
IS CLEAR, OBSTRUCTING CONGRESS
WHEN IT PERFORMS ITS SOLEMN
FUNCTION OF INVESTIGATING A
PRESIDENT TO SEE WHETHER
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT ARE
JUSTIFIED IS ITSELF AN
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. OTHERWISE THE ENTIRE SYSTEM
WOULD COLLAPSE.
WOULD COLLAPSE. IF THE PRESIDENT COULD DO WHAT
THIS PRESIDENT IS DOING, WHICH
IS EVEN MORE EXTREME THAN WHAT
RICHARD NIXON DID AND TRY TO GET
EVERYONE WHO HAS ANYTHING TO DO
WITH THE MATTER TO JUST CLAM UP,
THEN WE COULDN’T REALLY GET TO
THE BOTTOM OF EVERYTHING.
NOW HAPPILY, IN THIS CASE,
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH AND
OTHERS HAVE AGREED TO TESTIFY SO
THAT THE PRESIDENT’S STONEWALL
HAS TO SOME EXTENT COLLAPSED.
BUT THAT DOESN’T PREVENT THE
CONGRESS FROM DECIDING THAT
BUILDING THAT WALL WAS AN
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS ITSELF,
A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR.
>> I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT THE
STATE OF THE EVIDENCE ACTUALLY.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT MARK
MEADOWS SAID NOT IN THE
DEPOSITIONS WHERE HE SAID NEXT
TO NOTHING, BUT HE SAID TO
REPORTERS THAT EVEN IF PRESIDENT
TRUMP MADE THE REQUEST FOR
INVESTIGATION OF JOE BIDEN, IT
APPEARS THAT UKRAINE DID NOT
DELIVER THAT INVESTIGATION,
THEREFORE THERE IS NO OFFENSE.
>> WELL, THAT’S CRAZY.
IT’S LIKE SAYING THAT SOMEBODY
WHO TRIES TO ROB A BANK AND GETS
HALFWAY IS NOT A BANK ROBBER.
IT’S SIMPLY NOT THE LAW.
THE LAW IS CLEAR THAT ATTEMPTING
TO INTERFERE WITH THE PROPER
FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT AND
TRYING TO SHAKE DOWN A FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT, WHICH IS OUR ALLY,
BY PREVENTING IT FROM DEFENDING
ITSELF AGAINST AN ADVERSARY,
UNLESS IT DOES YOUR BIDDING AND
HELPS YOU GET REELECTED AND DIGS
UP DIRT AND DOES VARIOUS THINGS,
IN YOUR OWN PERSONAL FAVOR, THAT
THAT IS AN ABUSE OF POWER.
IT’S A BETRAYAL OF THE
PRESIDENT’S OATH, AND IT’S
CORRUPT.
CORRUPT. AND THE FACT THAT HE’S NOT
SUCCEEDED IN EVERY WAY IN DOING
IT JUST DOESN’T MATTER.
HE’S CLEARLY COMMITTED A HIGH
CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR, AND THE
EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING AND
UNQUESTIONED, THAT THAT’S
EXACTLY WHAT HE’S DONE.
>> PROFESSOR TRIBE, I’D LIKE TO
SQUEEZE IN A MERRELLCOMMERCIAL B
AND COME BACK WITH CHIEF JUDGE
ROBERT KATZMAN’S EXTRAORDINARY
OPINION TODAY WHICH IS GOING TO
GO STRAIGHT TO THE SUPREME COURT
APPARENTLY IN WHICH HE WROTE THE
UNANIMOUS OPINION SAYING YES,
PRESIDENT TRUMP’S TAX RETURNS
>>> PROSECUTORS ARE ONE VERY BIG STEP CLOSER TO DONALD TRUMP’S
TAX RETURNS TONIGHT.
A FEDERAL APPEALS COURT IN NEW
YORK UNANIMOUSLY RULED THAT
PRESIDENT TRUMP’S ACCOUNTING
FIRM MUST TURN OVER EIGHT YEARS
OF HIS PERSONAL AND CORPORATE
TAX RETURNS TO MANHATTAN
PROSECUTORS.
PROSECUTORS. DONALD TRUMP’S ATTORNEYS HAVE
ARGUED THAT AS PRESIDENT, HE IS
COMPLETELY IMMUNE NOT ONLY FROM
CRIMINAL PROSECUTION, BUT FROM
INVESTIGATIONS.
INVESTIGATIONS. IN THE OPINION TODAY WRITTEN BY
ROBERT KATZMANN, THE CHIEF JEFF
OF THE SECOND COURT OF APPEALS,
THE COURT SAID WE ARE NOT FACED
WITH THE PRESIDENT’S ARREST OR
IMPRISONMENT OR WITH AN ORDER
COMPELLING HIM TO ATTEND COURT
AT A PARTICULAR TIME OR PLACE OR
INDEED, AN ORDER THAT COMPELS
THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF TO DO
ANYTHING.
ANYTHING. THE SUBPOENA AT ISSUE IS
DIRECTED NOT TO THE PRESIDENT
BUT TO HIS ACCOUNTANTS.
COMPLIANCE DOES NOT REQUIRE THE
PRESIDENT TO DO ANYTHING AT
ALL."
ALL." THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYER ANNOUNCED
THEY WILL APPEAL THE CASE TO THE
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR
LAURENCE TRIBE IS BACK WITH US.
PROFESSOR TRIBE, ONE THING I’VE
BEEN STRUCK BY IN THIS CASE IS
THE SPEED.
THE SPEED. THIS IS REALLY SHOWING SWIFT
JUSTICE.
JUSTICE. THE LAWSUIT DONALD TRUMP SUED ON
SEPTEMBER 19th.
SEPTEMBER 19th. THAT’S WHEN HE FILED SUIT TOE
TRY TO STOP THESE RETURNS.
FOUR DAYS LATER, THE DISTRICT
COURT HEARD OVERALL ARGUMENTS.
LESS THAN TWO WEEKS AFTER THAT,
JUDGE MARRERO ISSUED A 75-PAGE
DECISION IN WHICH THE APPEALS
COURT HEARS THE ARGUMENTS ON
LESS THAN TWO WEEKS AFTER THAT.
AND LESS THAN TWO WEEKS AFTER
THE ARGUMENTS, YOU HAVE JUDGE
KATZMANN WITH A 35-PAGE OPINION
TODAY UPHOLDING THE LOWER COURT
AND SAYING YES, THEY MUST HAND
THESE OVER.
THESE OVER. AND NOWHERE IN THESE TWO
DECISIONS DOES THERE SEEM TO BE
ANY SPACE FOR THE SUPREME COURT
TO RULE IN ANOTHER DIRECTION.
>> I THINK THAT’S CLEARLY RIGHT.
JUDGE MARRERO WROTE A BRILLIANT
DECISION, MAKING IT VERY EASY
FOR THE COURT OF APPEALS TO
REJECT THE QUITE ABSURD POSITION
BY THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYERS THAT
JUST BEING PRESIDENT MEANS YOU
CAN’T BE INVESTIGATED, EVEN FOR
YOUR TAX VIOLATIONS, YOUR
CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN A GRAND
JURY, A STATE GRAND JURY IS
INVESTIGATING THE MATTER.
IT WAS AN EXTREME POSITION, AND
THE COURT OF APPEALS RENDERED SO
NARROW A RULING THAT THERE IS NO
BASIS AT ALL FOR THE U.S.
SUPREME COURT TO DISAGREE.
I THINK IT WILL NOT TAKE MUCH
TIME FOR THE SUPREME COURT TO
TOSS THIS CASE OUT, ALTHOUGH
COURTS DO NOT ALWAYS ACT AS
SWIFTLY AS THE FEDERAL COURTS IN
NEW YORK HAVE ACTED.
SO I THINK THE KEY THING TO
REMEMBER IS THAT NOTHING ABOUT
THE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS
NEEDS TO AWAIT THE JUDICIAL
RULINGS.
RULINGS. THESE TAX RETURNS WILL COME OUT,
WHETHER THEY COME OUT BEFORE OR
AFTER THE PRESIDENT IS IMPEACHED
IS ALMOST A SIDELINE, NOT A
MATTER OF GREAT SIGNIFICANCE.
>> I KNOW THAT JUDGE KATZMANN’S
RULING WAS VERY NARROW, AND HE
EMPHASIZED THAT.
EMPHASIZED THAT. HE ACTUALLY USED THE WORD
"NARROW" IN DESCRIBING IT.
>> RIGHT.
>> RIGHT. >> ISN’T THAT A JUDICIAL
STRATEGY WHEN YOU’RE HANDING IT
TO THE COURT ABOVE TO GIVE THE
SUPREME COURT A VERY NARROW CASE
TO RULE ON?
>> RIGHT.
>> RIGHT. BECAUSE THE ONLY WAY THE SUPREME
COURT COULD FIND ANY HOOK TO
REVERSE IS BY LOOKING AT BROAD
IMPLICATIONS OF THIS RULING, BUT
THE RULING ITSELF IS SO
INDISPUTABLY CORRECT THAT NO ONE
OF THE NINE JUSTICES COULD
PLAUSIBLY COME UP WITH ANY
REASON TO REVERSE IT, AND THE
SUPREME COURT HAS OFTEN SAID WE
SIT TO REVIEW JUDGMENTS, NOT TO
WRITE ELABORATE OPINIONS AND
ESSAYS.
ESSAYS. THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS
JUDGMENT FOR THE SUPREME COURT
TO DISAGREE WITH.
>> IT SEEMS TO ME IF THIS CASE
DID NOT INVOLVE THE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES THAT THE
SUPREME COURT WOULD BE VERY
UNLIKELY TO EVEN TAKE IT.
>> I DON’T THINK THEY’LL TAKE IT
ANYWAY.
ANYWAY. THE FACT THAT IT INVOLVES THE
PRESIDENT GIVES THEM AN
ADDITIONAL REASON NOT TO,
BECAUSE FOR THE COURT TO JUMP
INTO A POLITICALLY DEEP THICKET
AND A SWAMP OF SORTS, WHEN THE
LEGAL RULING IS CLEAR,
CONVINCING AND UNMISTAKABLY
CORRECT WOULD BE TO INVITE A
POLITICAL MUD FIGHT THAT THE
COURT DOESN’T NEED AND DOESN’T
WANT.
WANT. >> SO YOU THINK IT’S POSSIBLE
THEY WON’T EVEN GRANT CERTIARI?
THEY WON’T EVEN AGREE TO HEAR
THE CASE?
THE CASE? >> I THINK THE MOST LIKELY THING
IS SIMPLY NOT AGREEING TO HEAR
IT AT ALL.