OF CONGRESS.
>> Sandra: A LOT TO TAKE IN
THERE.
>> Bill: CERTAINLY IS.
ANDY MCCARTHY, GOOD MORNING TO
YOU.
WE'RE THROWING A LOT AT OUR
VIEWERS, A LOT IS COMING AT US
EVERY DAY AND HOUR.
WHERE SHOULD WE PUT OUR EYES
TODAY?
>> I THINK THE BEST PLACE,
BILL, WOULD BE CAPITOL HILL
WHERE WE JUST HEARD FROM
KATHERINE.
WE UNDERSTAND THE PRESIDENT IS
GOING TO SUBMIT THIS LETTER TO
THE HOUSE.
I THINK IT'S THE RIGHT THING
FOR HIM TO DO.
THE CONSTITUTION REPOSES THE
POWER TO IMPEACH SOLELY IN THE
HOUSE, NOT IN THE SPEAKER OF
THE HOUSE, IN THE HOUSE.
AND IT ACTUALLY WOULD BENEFIT
THE HOUSE EVEN THOUGH AS
SPEAKER PELOSI SAYS THERE IS
NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION
THAT REQUIRES THAT THEY TAKE A
VOTE BEFORE THEY DO AN
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
IF THEY WANT TO GO INTO COURT
AND TRY TO ENFORCE ANY
INFORMATION DEMANDS AS I'VE
POINTED OUT, WE DON'T HAVE
SUBPOENAS AT THE MOMENT.
WHAT POMPEO HAS IS LETTERS FROM
CONGRESS ASKING FOR ASSISTANCE.
IF THEY WANT TO GO INTO COURT
AND TRY TO ENFORCE THESE
INFORMATION DEMANDS THE FIRST
THING A COURT IS GOING TO WANT
TO KNOW IS HAS THE HOUSE VOTED
TO HAVE AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY?
A LOT HINGES ON THAT INCLUDING
HOW MUCH EXPANSION A COURT
WOULD GIVE A PRESIDENT'S CLAIM
OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AND
PRIVILEGE OVER MATTERS THAT ARE
IN THE PRESIDENT'S DUTIES UNDER
ARTICLE 2.
SO I THINK SHE IS RIGHT.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A VOTE.
THERE IS NOTHING THAT REQUIRES
THEM TO HAVE A VOTE.
BUT IF THIS IS GOING TO BE REAL.
IF THEY REALLY HAVE GROUNDS TO
SEEK THE PRESIDENT'S
IMPEACHMENT, THEY NOT ONLY
SHOULD HAVE A VOTE BECAUSE IT'S
IN THEIR INTEREST WHEN THEY GO
TO COURT TO HAVE A VOTE.
THEY SHOULD BE PROUD TO HAVE A
VOTE.
IF THEY REALLY THINK THERE ARE
GROUNDS TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES FROM
POWER, THEN THE HOUSE SHOULD
SPEAK AS ONE AS AN INSTITUTION
AND VOTE THAT WAY.
>> Bill: DO YOU SEE A SMOKING
GUN LURKING OBVIOUS OR NOT.
IF YOU'RE THE PRESIDENT ALL
THIS WHAT WOULD CONCERN YOU THE
MOST?
>> I WOULD BE MOST CONCERNED
ABOUT THE WAY AMERICANS ARE
CONSUMING THE COVERAGE.
THERE IS A LOT OF REPORTING
THAT IS SIMPLY INACCURATE ABOUT
WHAT IS GOING ON.
FOR EXAMPLE, THIS WHOLE IDEA
THERE IS AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
THERE IS NOT.
THE IDEA THERE ARE SUBPOENAS.
THEY AREN'T.
THIS IS ALL THEATER AT THIS
POINT.
A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE CONSUMING
IT AS IF IT WERE TRUE ON FACE
VALUE.
I REALLY THINK IF I WERE THE
WHITE HOUSE, WHAT I WOULD BE
WORRIED ABOUT IS BREAKING
THROUGH THAT.
>> Bill: I'M NOT QUITE SURE I'M
ENTIRELY CLEAR ON WHAT YOU'RE
SAYING THERE.
IF YOU'RE THE WHITE HOUSE
YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT
SPECIFICALLY?
>> I'M CONCERNED, FOR EXAMPLE.
LET'S TAKE ONE THING.
THE TERM QUID PRO QUO, RIGHT?
THERE IS ALWAYS QUID PRO QUO
WHEN FOREIGN COUNTRIES DEAL
WITH EACH OTHER.
THE ISSUE IS NOT WHETHER THERE
WAS A QUID PRO QUO.
IT WERE BIZARRE IF IT WASN'T AN
EXCHANGE.
THEY ARE ALWAYS PURSUING THEIR
INTERESTS.
WAS THERE A CORRUPT QUID PRO
QUO IS THE QUESTION HERE.
WAS THE PRESIDENT LEVERAGING
HIS POWER OVER FOREIGN AFFAIRS
EXCLUSIVELY TO GET THE
UKRAINIANS BASICALLY TO WORK ON
THE TRUMP 2020 CAMPAIGN.
ON THE OTHER HAND, IF WHAT THE
PRESIDENT WAS ACTUALLY DOING
WAS TRYING TO LEVERAGE THE
UKRAINIANS TO ASSIST IN
ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR'S
LEGITIMATE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
INVESTIGATION INTO THE
INVESTIGATIONS THAT WERE
ATTENDANT TO THE 2016 CAMPAIGN,
THAT'S NOT ONLY NORMAL, IT IS
ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE.
IF IT'S PITCHED TO THE PUBLIC
AS IF WAS THERE A QUID PRO QUO
ABOUT 2016, WHAT THE PUBLIC IS
TAKING FROM THAT IS THAT THE
SUGGESTION THAT THERE WAS A
CORRUPT, IMPROPER DEAL.
AND THAT IS BROUGHT TO THEM IN
THE CONTEXT OF BEING TOLD THERE
IS AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY OVER
IT AND THAT THERE ARE SUBPOENAS
PENDING DEMANDING THAT THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH TURN OVER
INFORMATION THAT IT'S
WITHHOLDING ABOUT THIS.
>> Bill: THE WAY YOU FRAME THAT
IT'S IF THE BILL CLINTON MATTER
CAME DOWN TO THE MEANING OF THE
WORD IS IS.
YOU ARE DESCRIBING WHETHER IT
WAS 2016 OR 2020.
I WANT TO GET A BETTER ANSWER
ON THAT -- A MORE COMPLETE
ANSWER AND WE'LL PUT YOU ON