>>> WELCOME BACK TO "HARDBALL." DEMOCRATS ON THE HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE ARE PLANNING TO
REFOCUS THEIR INVESTIGATIONS OF
THE WHITE HOUSE ON THE 2016
SCHEME TO SILENCE TWO WOMEN
ALLEGING AFFAIRS WITH THE
PRESIDENT.
PRESIDENT. "THE WASHINGTON POST" WAS FIRST
TO REPORT THAT THE COMMITTEE,
QUOTE, IS PREPARING TO HOLD
HEARINGS AND CALL WITNESSES
INVOLVED IN HUSH MONEY PAYMENT
TO EX-"PLAYBOY" MODEL KAREN
McDOUGAL AND ADULT FILM STAR
STORMY DANIELS AS SOON AS
OCTOBER.
OCTOBER. THOSE PAYMENTS WERE COORDINATED
BY FORMER TRUMP LAWYER MICHAEL
COHEN WHO IS CURRENTLY SERVING
THREE YEARS IN PRISON FOR
BREAKING CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS,
AMONG OTHER ACCUSATIONS.
PROSECUTORS IN COHEN’S CASE
DETAILED THE PRESIDENT’S ALLEGED
ROLE IN THIS SCHEME, BUT CLOSED
THEIR INVESTIGATION LAST MONTH
WITH NO ADDITIONAL CHARGES.
NOW ACCORDING TO THE POST,
QUOTE, THE NEW CONGRESSIONAL
INQUIRY WILL REOPEN QUESTIONS
ABOUT THE EXTENT OF TRUMP’S
INVOLVEMENT IN THE EPISODE AND
WHETHER HE WOULD HAVE BEEN
CHARGED IF NOT FOR JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT OPINIONS THAT A
SITTING PRESIDENT CANNOT BE
INDICTED.
INDICTED. THE NEW LINE OF INQUIRY WILL NO
DOUBT FUEL MORE DEBATE ABOUT
IMPEACHMENT, A MOVE THAT’S NOW
FAVORED BY 134 DEMOCRATS IN THE
HOUSE.
HOUSE. JOINING ME NOW IS DEMOCRATIC
CONGRESSWOMAN MARY GAY SCANLON
OF PENNSYLVANIA, THANK YOU FOR
JOINING US.
JOINING US. LET ME ASK YOU THIS.
THIS WAS INVESTIGATED IN THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.
THE CASE WAS CLOSED WITHOUT ANY
FURTHER ACTION.
FURTHER ACTION. WHAT CAN YOU LEARN HERE?
WHAT DO YOU HOPE TO LEARN HERE
THAT WE DON’T ALREADY KNOW?
>> WELL, WHAT WE KNOW ALREADY IS
THAT MICHAEL COHEN IS SERVING
JAIL TIME FOR CAMPAIGN FINANCE
VIOLATIONS INVOLVING PAYING
MONEY IN VIOLATION OF CAMPAIGN
FINANCE LAWS TO AFFECT THE
ELECTION OF HIS THEN BOSS,
DONALD TRUMP.
DONALD TRUMP. WE KNOW THAT THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT INVESTIGATED IT.
WE KNOW THAT THE D.A. IN
MANHATTAN IS STILL INVESTIGATING
IT, AND JUST RECENTLY, JUST AT
THE BEGINNING OF AUGUST, ISSUED
SOME MORE SUBPOENAS.
SO THERE ARE ACTIVE FACTS THERE
THAT SHOULD BE LOOKED INTO.
I THINK IT WOULD BE MALPRACTICE
OF THE JUDICIARY NOT TO LOOK
INTO IS THE T PRESIDENT
AUTHORIZED PAYMENTS TO ANYBODY
TO TRY TO IMPACT HIS ELECTION.
>> I GUESS THAT’S MY QUESTION,
BECAUSE I’VE SEEN SOME OF MY
COLLEAGUES.
COLLEAGUES. ONE OF YOUR COLLEAGUES QUOTED
ALREADY SATISFIED THAT THE
EVIDENCE IS THERE THAT SHOWS THE
PRESIDENT WAS A CO-CONSPIRATOR.
IS THAT YOUR VIEW OR NOT?
>> THERE MAY BE EVIDENCE THERE,
BUT OUR COMMITTEE HASN’T SEEN
IT.
IT. CONGRESS HASN’T SEEN IT THERE
WAS EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THE
GRAND JURY.
GRAND JURY. THE U.S. ATTORNEY UP THERE
REFERS TO SOMEONE WHO CAN ONLY
BE THE PRESIDENT AS INDIVIDUAL
NUMBER 1 AS HAVING AUTHORIZED
PAYMENTS IN VIOLATION OF
CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS.
SO IT’S KIND OF LIKE YOU CAN
CHARGE SOMEONE BASED UPON WHAT
YOU’VE BEEN TOLD, BUT YOU NEED
TO SEE THE EVIDENCE BEFORE YOU
GO TO TRIAL.
>> WHO DO YOU WANT TO HEAR FROM?
>> YOU KNOW, I THINK WE’RE GOING
TO HAVE TO FOLLOW THE MONEY, AS
THEY SAY, AND SEE WHAT IS IN THE
FILES FROM THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT.
DISTRICT. THERE WERE A LOT OF PEOPLE
INVOLVED.
INVOLVED. I’M MUCH MORE INTERESTED IN WHO
AUTHORIZED ANY HUSH MONEY
PAYMENTS THAN WHO THEY WERE
GIVEN TO.
GIVEN TO. >> THE CHAIRMAN OF YOUR QUESTION
COMMITTEE SAYS THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE IS ALREADY ENGAGED IN
AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
THIS PART OF THAT?
>> I THINK IT ABSOLUTELY IS.
ONE OF THE CORE FUNCTIONS OF THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IS TO
DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEY’RE
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES.
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES. THE MUELLER REPORT WAS PART OF
THAT, BUT THERE IS CERTAINLY A
NUMBER OF OTHER ALLEGATIONS
CONCERNING THIS ADMINISTRATION
THAT COULD AMOUNT TO HIGH CRIMES
AND MISDEMEANORS.
AND MISDEMEANORS. >> SO I GUESS THAT’S AN
INTERESTING QUESTION THEN.
DO YOU BELIEVE THE QUESTION
YOU’RE POSING HERE IS WHETHER
THE PRESIDENT WAS INVOLVED IN OR
WHETHER OR NOT HE WAS THE
PRINCIPLE FIGURE IN SETTING UP
THIS SCHEME TO GO AROUND
CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS TO KEEP
THE POLITICALLY EMBARRASSING
AFFAIR A SECRET DURING THE
CAMPAIGN.
CAMPAIGN. YOU BELIEVE IF ESTABLISHED THAT
WOULD BE IMPEACHABLE?
THAT WOULD BE A HIGH CRIME?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
>> ABSOLUTELY. IN FACT, THE FRAMERS OF THE
CONSTITUTION, WHEN THEY DEBATED
THOSE TERMS, WHETHER OR NOT
THERE SHOULD BE AN IMPEACHMENT
CLAUSE RIGHT HERE IN
PHILADELPHIA WHERE I’M SITTING,
THEY LAID OUT A NUMBER OF THINGS
THAT THEY VIEWED AS IMPEACHABLE
OFFENSES.
OFFENSES. ONE OF THEM WAS PROCURING
ELECTION BY CORRUPTION.
IF THE PRESIDENT PROCURED HIS
ELECTION BY CORRUPTION, THEN THE
FOUNDERS OF OUR COUNTRY VIEWED
THAT AS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
>> I GUESS THE PERIL, IF IT DOES
COME TO THIS, IF YOU HAVE THESE
HEARINGS, IF IT’S PART OF AN
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, IF THIS
LEADS TO AN IMPEACHMENT
RECOMMENDATION FROM YOUR
COMMITTEE, I THINK ONE OF THE
CRITICISMS THAT MIGHT BE LEVELED
AGAINST TAKING THAT ACTION WOULD
BE WHAT ABOUT BILL CLINTON?
WHAT ABOUT DEMOCRATS LIKE JERRY
NADLER WHO CHAIRS YOUR COMMITTEE
IN 1998 AND HOW THEY HANDLED
BILL CLINTON?
BILL CLINTON? COMMITTED A FELONY, PERJURY, TO
COVER UP A POLITICALLY
EMBARRASSING AFFAIR TO KEEP THE
COUNTRY FROM KNOWING ABOUT THAT.
THE POSITION OF JERRY NADLER,
THE POSITION OF JUST ABOUT EVERY
DEMOCRAT BACK THEN WAS, YEAH, IT
WAS A FELONY.
YEAH, IT WAS TO COVER UP
SOMETHING POLITICALLY
SOMETHING POLITICALLY EMBARRASSING, MAYBE SOMETHING
POLITICALLY DAMAGING, BUT IT
WASN’T IMPEACHABLE BECAUSE IT
WAS PRIVATE MATTER.
>> OKAY.
>> OKAY. WELL, SO, IMPEACHMENT HAS ALWAYS
BEEN A COMBINATION OF ACTUAL
CONDUCT AND A POLITICAL
CALCULATION.
CALCULATION. AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE
QUESTION IS WHETHER THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT IT’S AN
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, AND IT’S
OUR JOB ON JUDICIARY TO GET THE
EVIDENCE OUT THERE.
>> I GUESS THE QUESTION I’M
ASKING IS THE LINE THAT WAS
DRAWN IN 1998 WAS YES, HE MIGHT
HAVE COMMITTED A FELONY, BUT
BECAUSE IT WAS ABOUT SOMETHING
THAT WAS ULTIMATELY PRIVATE, A
CONSENSUAL AFFAIR, IT WASN’T
IMPEACHABLE.
IMPEACHABLE. NOW THERE WOULD BE A CHARGE
POTENTIALLY, A CHARGE THAT THE
PRESIDENT COMMITTED A FELONY TO
COVER UP A POLITICALLY
EMBARRASSING AFFAIR, BUT IT
WOULD BE IMPEACHABLE, EVEN
THOUGH IT WAS PRIVATE CONSENSUAL
AFFAIR.
AFFAIR. >> I THINK THERE IS A LOT OF
DISTINCTIONS THERE, THE FIRST OF
WHICH WAS I WASN’T IN CONGRESS
BACK THEN.
BACK THEN. BUT I THINK THE REALLY IMPORTANT
ONE IS THAT THE FELONY AT ISSUE
HERE WOULD BE WHETHER OR NOT THE
PRESIDENT ACTED IN A WAY THAT
WAS CORRUPT TO PROCURE HIS OWN
ELECTION.
ELECTION. IT REALLY GOES TO THE HEART OF
OUR DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM.
>> SAY YOU’RE IN AN IMPEACHMENT
INQUIRY RIGHT NOW.
JERRY NADLER SAID HE PATES VOTES