I want to start with the spectacle
we saw on the House floor
a couple of weeks ago.
Republicans taking 15 votes
to elect Kevin McCarthy speaker.
Forget the partizanship,
republican versus Democrat.
As a political pro watching that.
What did you think?
Well, I was sad for the institution.
They should have had their act together.
They should have gotten it done.
And that was sad.
It was nothing to be amused by
or laugh at or any of
it was sad for the institution.
So was it worth his doing it?
I mean, yes, it was kind of ugly.
And and not particularly dignified.
But he did get elected
speaker in the House.
Well, 15 times.
I mean, that's kind of start.
I would hope that he would get it done
right. From the start.
What's the challenge?
Let's figure this out. Let's get it done.
And if not, let's move on
to someone else.
I want to pick up on that.
Your daughter,
Alexander, has done
a fascinating documentary
about
you called Pelosi in the House,
which is running right now on HBO, Max.
And in it, she shows you rounding up
votes back in 2018 to be elected speaker.
Take a look.
I have a good feel
for where the votes are in my caucus.
Since the election,
she has met in person with 67 members
or members elect.
So how do you get people's votes?
Do you just break their knees and make no
And I'm very respectful of people's views.
So I want to hear what they are.
I want to hear what people have to say.
You can vote by listening
So what would you have done
if you were McCarthy
and you got to the first day
of the actual session?
You know, you've gone through
all of this stuff before.
And you didn't have the votes.
I would have had the votes.
I knew I had the votes.
I mean, I don't.
I had
well over 200 votes in the caucus,
so I knew I would have the votes.
It was never a question.
What happens?
Chris, just so you know, is
the press
makes a big thing of opposition.
You know, say,
oh, so-and-so said
this and so-and-so said that.
But it isn't as
it's not as it may
sell papers,
but it's not really the true picture.
Of what is happening there.
McCarthy says that he is going to kick
three Democrats
off their committees here.
Here they are.
Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, Ilhan Omar.
And he says
that you set the precedent
because in the last session,
the Democrats kicked two Republicans,
Marjorie Taylor Greene
and Paul Gosar off their committees.
Didn't you open the door to this? No.
We set a precedent,
which I hope that will follow.
If they have members, as they did
with threatened,
the security of our members
on the committee
were a danger to our members
threatening them,
then they would go off the committee.
So if they have that accusation
about any of our members,
let's hear what they have to say.
It was clear
that their members
were a threat to our members.
So this is about maintaining safety
for our members.
The fact that they want to
take these people off
the committee
is more philosophic as philosophical.
During
the long vote
for speaker,
millions of Americans were riveted
by the action on the floor
and they saw stuff
they had never seen before.
As you can see up here on the screen
now with the speaker
talking to Matt Gaetz and then another
bit hold back.
I mean, it was fascinating stuff.
The fact is, though, that normally
once the speaker is in charge,
that C-SPAN is sharply
limited in what it can show.
It basically can show the speaker
up on the podium,
it can show
whoever is talking,
which member is talking
on the wall of the House.
There's been a push to change the rules
to allow people
to see what really is going on
on the floor.
Do you support that or not?
Well, it depends.
I don't have any objection
to transparency and the rest.
And you didn't allow it
when you were a speaker.
But I don't
I think it's supposed to be
about following the procedure.
The debate in the Congress.
And if there's more
opportunity for that, fine.
But I don't think it should be
used as a tool against members.
I saw you talking
to so-and-so on the floor,
and they said that that
that shouldn't be the case.
This was remarkable, because when we
when this was all going
on, you have to remember
there were no rules in that house. Right.
Anything went.
And sometimes they said
terrible things on the Republican side,
but we couldn't challenge it
because there were no rules of the House.
And
forgetting whether it's rules
or not, foot for the potential speaker
or anyone to go up to a member
in that manner.
This just does not bring dignity
to the house of represent.
Let me see if I got this right there.
Basically, you're saying
you liked the rules the way they are.
Follow the official proceedings.
If there's something going on in
one of the aisles,
you don't want that on TV.
Well, it depends on what it is.
I don't know.
I don't I don't want it to curb the
party action that might
happen on the floor.
That might be positive.
But by and large, my view is
the more transparency, the better.
We now have not one
but two special counsels.
Yeah.
One investigating President
Trump, former President Trump.
One investigating current President
Joe Biden
for their handling
of classified documents.
Here's
what you had to say about Donald Trump
and his problems this summer.
Take a look.
If the nature of this
of these documents is what appears to be,
this is very serious.
Do you think that classified documents
showing up in Joe Biden's office home
six years
after he was vice president,
do you think that's also very serious?
Well, it depends on the nature
of the documents.
What I said
as you were
listening
was if the nature of these documents
is what it appears to be, we don't know.
But what we were talking about,
it was the highest level
of classification of the documents.
And so I think you have to talk about
the procedure.
President Biden has said
his lawyers are finding these
and bringing them out
President
Trump was obstructing
obstructing access to them.
So I think you look at volume,
you look at procedure,
and then you have to see
what the nature of the driver.
But we don't know what the nature is.
But you said it
perfectly in the beginning.
There are two special counsels.
Let the let the truth
come forth by the special counsel's.
But you're
talking about the nature
of the documents,
if the documents turned out
to be very sensitive.
The Biden documents
that would be very unusual.
Don't I said they're if.
Right. Yeah, that would be very serious.
Well, we'll see what they are.
I don't think that having a
briefing on a meeting with somebody,
you know.
We used to tease up
an intelligence committee and just say,
be careful
because they're going to stamp
classified on The Washington Post.
I understand that the cases are
very different. You talk about
the number of documents where they were,
the question of transparency
and cooperation by the the two men.
You said it very well.
Thank you.
But as a practical matter,
isn't it going to be impossible,
even if the facts were to bear out
that Trump
committed a crime and should be charged?
Isn't it
as a practical matter, impossible,
given the fact that Biden
had documents
and his office had documents in his home?
Well, it depends.
It depends.
And that's what you have a special.
I think that again,
I said you said it
perfectly to begin with.
The attorney general
asked someone to review
to see
if a special prosecutor was recommended.
He said, yes,
there was a special prosecutor
for Joe Biden,
even though the cases
are quite different.
We don't know
until the special prosecutor
does all of the investigation.
Is it when you say is it harder
I don't know.
It just depends on what comes
out of the investigations.