THE PEOPLE WHO SURVIVED SATURDAY AND THE WOMAN WHO DIDN’T.
ALL AT THE END OF THIS HOUR.
TONIGHT, WE HAVE AN ATTORNEY
GENERAL TAKING AN UNPRECEDENTED
POSITION, ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR
IS SAYING THAT NO STAFF
ATTORNEYS ON ANY COMMITTEES CAN
EVER QUESTION HIM.
OF COURSE, CONGRESS HAS BEEN
DOING IT THAT WAY FOR DECADES
FOR AS LONG AS I’VE BEEN ALIVE.
SOME OF THE MOST FAMOUS
QUESTIONING IN CONGRESSIONAL
HEARINGS HAS BEEN DONE BY STAFF
ATTORNEYS.
ATTORNEYS. AND SO WILLIAM BARR HAS ISSUED
KIND OF A THREAT AND WE DON’T
KNOW IF HE’S GOING TO SHOW UP AT
THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
HEARING WHERE THEY WANT TO USE
SOME STAFF ATTORNEYS TO ASK
QUESTIONS INSTEAD OF JUST THE
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
IS RUN BY REPUBLICAN LINDSEY
GRAHAM AND THEY’RE GOING TO DO
EVERYTHING EXACTLY THE WAY
WILLIAM BARR WANTS THEM TO DO
IT.
IT. SO THERE WON’T BE ANY TENSION
FOR WILLIAM BARR IN THE SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING ON
WEDNESDAY.
WEDNESDAY. BUT ON THURSDAY, SAYING HE JUST
MIGHT NOT SHOW UP FOR THE HOUSE
HEARING.
HEARING. AND SO THERE’S A STATEMENT
TONIGHT FROM THE JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT SAYING THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL AGREED TO APPEAR BEFORE
CONGRESS.
CONGRESS. THEREFORE, MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
SHOULD BE THE ONES DOING THE
QUESTIONING.
QUESTIONING. HE REMAINS HAPPY TO ENGAGE, DO
YOU BELIEVE THAT, HAPPY, HE
REMAINS HAPPY TO ENGAGE WITH
MEMBERS ON THEIR QUESTIONS
REGARDING THE MUELLER REPORT.
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
CHAIRMAN JERRY NADLER EXPLAINED
THE NEED FOR COMMITTEE LAWYERS
TO QUESTION THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL.
GENERAL. >> WE’VE SEEN ANY NUMBER OF
INSTANCES UNDER THE FIVE-MINUTE
RULE WHERE A WITNESS ALSO
FILIBUSTER FOR 4 1/2 MINUTES AND
GIVE A NONRESPONSIVE ANSWER IN
THE LAST HALF MINUTE AND YOU
CAN’T FOLLOW UP.
IF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS
AFRAID TO SUBJECT HIMSELF TO
QUESTIONS WHERE YOU CAN FOLLOW
UP THAT MAY INDICATE LACK OF
CONFIDENCE IN HIS OWN POSITIONS.
IT’S NOT UP TO THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL TO TELL THE COMMITTEE
HOW TO CONDUCT ITS BUSINESS OR
WE WILL DECIDE WHAT THE MOST
EFFECTIVE WAY OF ASKING
QUESTIONS ARE AND THAT’S WHAT
OUR DECISION IS.
>> CHAIRMAN NADLER SAID THAT
ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR COULD BE
SUBPOENAED IF HE REFUSES TO
TESTIFY THIS WEEK.
>> WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF HE
DOESN’T SHOW UP?
>> WE’VE TOLD HIM WE EXPECT HIM
TO SHOW UP ON THURSDAY AND WE’RE
GOING TO CONDUCT THE INQUIRE AS
WE SAID WE WOULD.
IF HE DOESN’T SHOW UP, WE’LL
RESORT TO SUBPOENAS.
>> HE WAS ASKED WHETHER WILLIAM
BARR’S OBJECTIONS TO TESTIFYING
COULD CHANGE THE COMMITTEE’S
POSITION ON IMPEACHMENT.
>> IF THE ADMINISTRATION
CONTINUES TO STONEWALL, DOESN’T
LET BARR COME, DOES THERE IS
HELP BUILD THE CASE TOWARDS
STARTING IMPEACHMENT IT
PROCEEDINGS?
PROCEEDINGS? >> IT CERTAINLY BUILDS THE CASE
AT THAT TIME ADMINISTRATION AND
THE PRESIDENT IS ENGAGED IN
WHOLESALE OBSTRUCTION OF
CONGRESS.
CONGRESS. COMPLETELY EXTRA CONSTITUTIONAL.
TRYING TO MAKE THE PRESIDENCY
NOT RESPONSIVE TO CONGRESS,
TRYING TO MAKE THE PRESIDENCY
INTO A MONARCHY.
IT IS ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE.
WE’LL TAKE WHATEVER ACTION WE
HAVE TO DO TO DEAL WITH IT.
>> INCLUDEING IMPEACHMENT
PROCEEDINGS?
PROCEEDINGS? >> THAT REMAINS TO BE SEEN.
>> "THE WASHINGTON POST" IS
REPORTING TONIGHT FRUSTRATION
AMONG HOUSE DEMOCRATIC
INVESTIGATORS LEADING SOME TO
PRIVATELY QUESTION WHETHER THEY
SHOULD TRY TO PRESSURE SPEAKER
NANCY PELOSI INTO LAUNCHING
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS.
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE
SIX PANELS INVESTIGATING THE
PRESIDENT ARE INCREASINGLY
ANGERED BY THE WHITE HOUSE’S
UNWILLINGNESS TO COMPLY AS THEY
CARRY OUT THEIR OVERSIGHT ROLE
ACCORDING TO SEVERAL HOUSE
DEMOCRATIC OFFICIALS WHO SPOKE
ON THE CONDITION OF ANONYMITY TO
DISCUSS THE MATTER FREELY.
HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI SAID
THIS TODAY ABOUT THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL’S UPCOMING TESTIMONY.
>> WHAT’S YOUR MESSAGE TO
ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR?
>> UNDER YOUR OATH OF OFFICE.
>> AND LET’S JUST TAKE A LOOK
BACK TO SOME OF THE MOST
IMPORTANT QUESTIONING AND MOST
MEMORABLE QUESTIONING STUFF THAT
I CAN REMEMBER FROM WHEN I WAS
IN COLLEGE DURING THE WATERGATE
HEARINGS, THERE WERE STAFF
ATTORNEYS FOR BOTH PARTIES IN
THE HEARINGS OFFERING THE
QUESTIONING, FRED THOMPSON
BECAME A BIG POLITICAL STAR,
REPUBLICAN FRED THOMPSON WHO WAS
THE REPUBLICAN COUNSEL TO THE
COMMITTEE.
COMMITTEE. BECAME A BIG POLITICAL STAR AS A
RESULT OF HIS STARRING ROLE IN
THE HEARINGS ASKING QUESTIONS.
THAT ENABLED HIM TO MOUNT A
SENATE CAMPAIGN LATER IN HIS
CAREER.
CAREER. LET’S WATCH STAFF ATTORNEY FRED
THOMPSON, REPUBLICAN STAFF
ATTORNEY FRED THOMPSON IN THE
WATERGATE HEARINGS.
WATERGATE HEARINGS. >> SO YOU WERE EMPLOYED ON
JANUARY 21st, 1969 AND CONTINUED
TO BE EMPLOYED UNTIL MARCH 14 OF
THIS YEAR, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT’S CORRECTING.
> MR. BUT THE IRFIELD ARE THE AN
AWARE CONFIDENT OF INSTALLATION
OF ANY LISTENING DEVICES IN THE
OVAL OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT.
>> I WAS AWARE OF LISTENING
DEVICES, YES, SIR.
>> MAYBE THE MOST IMPORTANT
QUESTION ASKED IN THE HEARING,
ONE OF THE MOST CERTAINLY.
LET’S WATCH SAM DASH, SAM DASH
WAS THE ATTORNEY THE COUNSEL ON
THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE OF THE
COMMITTEE.
COMMITTEE. LET’S WATCH HIM AT WORK.
>> NOW WITH REGARD TO THE
TELEPHONES, THEY WERE OPERATED,
WERE THEY NOT BY AS SOON AS THE
PRESIDENT THAT USES HIS
TELEPHONE, LIFTED UP HIS
TELEPHONE AND ENGAGED IN A
CONVERSATION OR RECEIVED A
CONVERSATION ON HIS PRESIDENT’S
PHONE, THE RECORDING DEVICE
BEGAN TO RECORD THE TELEPHONE
CONVERSATION?
CONVERSATION? >> THAT’S MY UNDERSTANDING,
MR. DASH, BUT I LACK ALL OF THE
TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE
TELEPHONE RECORDING DEVICE.
>> LEADING OFF OUR DISCUSSION
TONIGHT A MEMBER OF THE
COMMITTEE THAT HAS JURISDICTION
OVER IMPEACHMENT, DEMOCRATIC
CONGRESSMAN JAMIE RASKIN OF
MARYLAND A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND WHO
MIGHT MIGHT BE QUESTIONING
WILLIAM BARR THIS WEEK.
HE’S ALSO A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE.
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE. ALSO SENIOR EDITOR AT THE
ATLANTIC WROTE THE COVER STORY
MAKING THE CASE FOR IMPEACHING
PRESIDENT TRUMP BEFORE THE
MUELLER REPORT WAS COMPLETED.
AND JULIAN EPSTEIN IS WITH US, A
FORMER DEMOCRATIC CHIEF COUNSEL
TO THE HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE, NO ONE KNOWS THE
PROCEDURES OF THE COMMITTEE
BETTER THAN JULIAN EPSTEIN.
>> CONGRESS MAN RASKIN, LET ME
START WITH YOU.
I CAN REMEMBER FRED THOMPSON, I
CAN REMEMBER RESAM DASH FROM THE
WATERGATE COMMITTEE HEARINGS
BETTER THAN I CAN REMEMBER ANY
MEMBER WHO WAS ACTUALLY ALSO ON
THE PANELS ASKING QUESTIONS.
WE REMEMBER SPECIFICALLY WA WHAT
THEIR QUESTIONS ARE.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS NO
STANDING THAT I’M AWARE OF TO
OBJECT TO THE PROCESSES OF THE
COMPLETE.
COMPLETE. DOES HE -- DOES THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL KNOW SOMETHING I DON’T
KNOW ABOUT THE HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE?
COMMITTEE? >> HE DOESN’T RUB THE COMMITTEE.
HE DOESN’T RUN CONGRESS.
AND WE’RE NOT GOING TO ALLOW HIM
TO MICROMANAGE THE FORMAT OF OUR
QUESTIONING.
QUESTIONING. AND AS I THINK YOU QUOED A
LITTLE EXCERPT FROM AN INTERVIEW
WITH CHAIRMAN NADLER, THE
COMMITTEE FEELS VERY STRONGLY
ABOUT THE WITNESSES THAT HAVE
BEEN COMING EARLIER FROM THE
ADMINISTRATION AND JUST
FILIBUSTERING US.
FILIBUSTERING US. I REMEMBER WHEN ATTORNEY GENERAL
WHITAKER CAME IN AND WOULD HAVE
HUGE WINDUPS FOR 60 SECONDS
PRAISING THE QUESTION AND IT WAS
SUCH A BRILLIANT QUESTION TILL
FINALLY PEOPLE SAID DON’T PRAISE
MY QUESTION.
MY QUESTION. I DON’T NEED TO BE THANKED JUST
ANSWER THE QUESTION.
OBVIOUSLY THEY’RE BEING TAUGHT
TO FILIBUSTER.
TO FILIBUSTER. WE THOUGHT EACH MEMBER WOULD
HAVE FINE MINUTES TO QUESTION,
AND THERE WOULD BE 30 MINUTES
WHERE THE REPUBLICANS WOULD BE
ABLE TO QUESTION AND 30 MINUTES
WHERE THE DEMOCRATS WOULD BE
ABLE TO QUESTION.
AND AS YOU’RE POINTING OUT,
THERE’S GREAT PRECEDENT FOR
THAT.
THAT. IT’S UP TO US.
SUDDENLY WE HAVING THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL TRYING TO DICTATE HOW WE
RUN OUR COMMITTEE.
I KNOW CHAIRMAN NADLER AND THE
MEMBERS WILL NOT ACCEPT THAT.
>> JULIAN EPSTEIN, KNOWING THE
RULES THE WAY YOU DO, WHAT’S
GOING TO HAPPEN HERE?
>> WELL, I THINK THERE’S A
STANDOFF RIGHT NOW.
AND THE COMMITTEE CERTAINLY HAS
THE RULES UNDER THE HOUSE RULES
TO BE ABLE TO BE HAVE STAFF ASK
QUESTIONS.
QUESTIONS. IT’S EXACTLY WHAT WE DID DURING
THE 1998 HEARINGS WITH KEN STARR
WHERE WE HAD OUR INVESTIGATORS
ASK QUESTIONS AND YOUR SETUP
PIECE OBVIOUSLY YOU TALKED ABOUT
ALL THE OTHER PRECEDENTS IRAN
CON TRACTION WATERGATE, SO ON.
I THINK SOME OF THIS
DISCUSSION -- THERE’S NO
QUESTION ABOUT PRESS DENY NO,
QUESTION ABOUT STAFF ASKING
SENATE CONFIRMED CABINET
OFFICIALS TO BE ABLE TO TESTIFY.
THAT’S WELL ESTABLISHED IN
PRECEDENT.
PRECEDENT. I THINK SOME OF THIS
CONVERSATION MISSES IT THE
FOREST FOR THE TREES.
THIS IS REALLY THE OPENING SHOT
IN A LONGER TERM GAME TA BOTH
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND THE
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ARE
PLAYING.
PLAYING. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT HAS A THEORY
ON THE CASE.
THEIR THEORY ON THE CASE IS WE
CAN IGNORE ALL THE NORMS AND
THUMB OUR NOSE AT THE COMMITTEE
AND SAY SEE US IN COURT.
WE CAN TIE THIS THING UP IN
COURT FOR MONTHS IF NOT YEARS.
IN THE MEANTIME, HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE, YOU’VE GOT ABOUT AS
MUCH EVIDENCE AS YOU’RE PROBABLY
GOING TO GET IF YOU THINK THE
PRESIDENT OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE AND
VIOLATED THE LAW, CALL THE
QUESTION ON IMPEACHMENT.
I DARE YOU TO.
THAT’S BARR’S THEORY ON THE
CASE.
CASE. THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE THEORY
ON THE CASE IS PRAEV PROBABLY
GOT A BETTER LEGAL ARGUMENT TO
GET ACCESS NOT JUST TO BE ABLE
TO CONDUCT HEARINGS THE WAY WE
WANT TO BUT THERE’S OTHER ISSUES
HERE THAT ARE EVEN BIGGER
ISSUES.
ISSUES. I DON’T THINK BARR TESTIFYING ON
THURSDAY IS GOING TO ADVANCE THE
KNOWLEDGE THAT MUCH BECAUSE I
THINK HE KNOWS HOW TO DANCE
AROUND THE QUESTIONS.
BIGGER ISSUES HERE ARE WHETHER
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WILL BE
ABLE TO GET THE REDACTED
PORTIONS OF THE BARR REPORT AND
ACCESS TO THE WITNESSES ON THE
UNDERLYING MATERIAL.
UNDERLYING MATERIAL. THEIR THEORY IS WE’VE GOT A
STRONGER CASE IN COURTILY.
IF YOU WANT TO TIE US UP IN
COURT FOR THE NEXT SEVERAL
MONTHS OR EVEN YEAR, GUESS WHAT,
WE’RE GOING TO BENGHAZI YOU AND
BENGHAZI YOU WITH A WHOLE BUNCH
OF HEARINGS BECAUSE THE BARR
REPORT, THE MUELLER REPORT IS A
RICH TAPESTRY OF A FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT ATTACK ON THE UNITED
STATES THAT THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION AND THE TRUMP
CANDIDACY CHEERED AND BENEFITS
FROM.
FROM. SO WE’LL HAVE THOSE HEARINGS AND
THAT’S THE TAB BELOW BEING SET
RIGHT HERE.
RIGHT HERE. AND I WOULDN’T BET AGAINST IT, I
WORKED WITH JERRY NADLER FOR
YEARS DURING THE CLINTON
IMPEACHMENT.
IMPEACHMENT. I’VE KNOWN JAMIE RASKIN FOR
DECADES.
DECADES. I WOULDN’T BET AGAINST THESE
GUYS IN THAT FIGHT.
THEY KNOW WHAT THEY’RE DOING AND
KNOW HOW TO SET UP HEARINGS AND
THIS IS A GAME THAT A LONG-TERM
GAME I THINK THE TRUMP WHITE
HOUSE IS GOING TO END UP LOSING.
THEY’RE GOING TO CARRY THIS
ISSUE, RATHER THAN PUTTING THIS
ISSUE AWAY IN THE NEXT SIX
MONTHS, THEY’LL CARRY IT INTO
THE ELECTION AND IT WILL COST
THEM.
THEM. >> YOU KNOW,NY APPLEBAUM, WHEN
YOUR COVER STORY CAME OUT ABOUT
IMPEACHMENT, IT ARRESTED
EVERYONE’S ATTENTION.
EVERYONE’S ATTENTION. WE TALKED ABOUT IT ON THIS
PROGRAM FOR AT LEAST A WEEK OR
SO.
SO. IT CREATED ITS OWN SORT OF SURGE
OF INTEREST IN IMPEACHMENT.
AND THEN THAT DIED DOWN RATHER
DRAMATICALLY AND HERE IT IS
REVIVED AGAIN WITH THE RELEASE
OF THE REDACTED VERSION OF THE
MUELLER REPORT.
MUELLER REPORT. AND NOW YOU SEE CHAIRMAN NADLER
EVERY OTHER QUESTION HE’S ASKED
NOW SOMEHOW INCLUDES THE WORD
IMPEACHMENT IN THAT QUESTION,
WILL THIS THING THAT THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL IS DOING
PROVOKE IMPEACHMENT.
PROVOKE IMPEACHMENT. WHAT IS YOUR SENSE OF WHERE WE
ARE IN THIS CURVE OF HISTORY
THAT MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT LEAD TO
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS?
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS? >> WELL, IT’S A GREAT QUESTION.
IN MANY WAYS I THINK THE MUELLER
REPORT OR AT LEAST THAT PORTION
OF IT THAT THAT WE WERE ALLOWED
TO SEE AMOUNTS TO IMPEACHMENT
REFERRAL.
REFERRAL. HE IS REMINDING ALL OF US ABOUT
THE CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM UNDER
WHICH WE OPERATE IN WHICH A
SITTING PRESIDENT UNDER
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE GUIDANCE
CAN’T BE CHARGED WITH A CRIME.
THAT PROCESS AND THIS IS ONE
THING THAT ROBERT MUELLER AND
ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR AND BRETT
KAVANAUGH ALL AGREE ON,
IMPEACHMENT IS THE PROCESS FOR
HOLDING A SITTING PRESIDENT FOR
ACCOUNT FOR POTENTIAL CRIMINAL
MISCONDUCT.
MISCONDUCT. THE MUELLER REPORT HAS KICKED
THE BALL BACK INTO CONGRESS’
COURT WHICH IS WHERE IT’S BEEN
ALL ALONG.
ALL ALONG. THAT IS I THINK WHY THIS
CONVERSATION KEEPS COMING BACK
AROUND TO IMPEACHMENT
ULTIMATELY.
ULTIMATELY. IF THE THINGS THAT MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS HAVE REPEATEDLY CHARGED
THE PRESIDENT WITH HAVING DONE,
ARE TRUE, IF HE’S DONE THEM
THAT, IS THE CONSTITUTIONAL
REMEDY FOR THOSE CHARGES.
>> CONGRESSMAN RASKIN, JULIAN
JUST ALLUDED TO SOMETHING I’VE
BEEN WONDERING MYSELF.
AND THAT IS THE POINT OF WILLIAM
BARR TESTIFYING TO THE HOUSE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE NOW THAT WE
HAVE SEEN HIM TESTIFY, NOW THAT
WE SAW HIM IN HIS CONFIRMATION
HEARING AND GO THROUGH ANOTHER
ROUND OF TESTIFYING TO CONGRESS,
IT SEEMS AS THOUGH HE IS
PREPARED TO DEAL WITH, EVADE,
NOT RESPOND REASONABLY, TO ANY
KINDS OF QUESTIONS YOU CAN COME
UP TO IF THAT’S WHAT HE WANTS TO
DO.
DO. HE’S ALSO CAPABLE OF DIRECT AND
CLEAR ANSWERS.
CLEAR ANSWERS. WE’VE SEEN HIM DO THAT ALSO.
HE SEEMS TO HAVE THE FULL RANGE
OF ABILITY TO RESPOND IN A WAY
THAT SERVES HIM.
AND HIS POSITION AND PRESIDENT
TRUMP.
TRUMP. SO THAT RAISES THE QUESTION OF
HOW IMPORTANT IS THIS HEARING
WITH WILLIAM BARR ANYWAY?
BECAUSE JULIAN AND I BOTH HAVE A
FEELING WE KNOW HOW IT’S GOING
TO GO.
TO GO. >> WELL, HE’S CLEARLY NOT THE
MOST IMPORTANT WITNESS FOR US.
WE’RE VERY EAGER TO HEAR FROM
DON McGRAN, THE WHITE HOUSE
COUNSEL WHO WAS TOLD TO GET
SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER FIRED
AND EFFECTIVELY REFUSED TO DO
IT.
IT. THREATENING HIS RESIGNATION.
OR TENDERING HIS RESIGNATION AS
I UNDERSTAND IT.
WE WANT TO HEAR FROM MUELLER
HIMSELF.
HIMSELF. THERE ARE DEFINITELY MORE
IMPORTANT WITNESSES THAN THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL.
ATTORNEY GENERAL. I THINK MEMBERS ARE EAGER TO
QUESTION HIM ABOUT THE QUITE
UNPRECEDENTED PROPAGANDA ROLLOUT
OF THE BARR REPORT ON THE
MUELLER REPORT.
MUELLER REPORT. AND SOME OF THE PERVERSE LEGAL
REASONING THAT HE OFFERED US.
BUT I THINK THAT PROBABLY GOES
MORE TO JUST DECONSTRUCTING THE
DIFFERENT THEORIES HE’S ADVANCED
THAN IT GOES TO GETTING TO THE
UNDERLYING FACTS OF THE CASE.
SO IF HE REALLY INSISTS ON
PRESSING HITS R HIS POINT, I FOR
ONE WOULD NOT CONSIDER IT A
TRAGEDY IF WE GOT RIGHT TO THE
PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO TELL US
THE TRUTH WHAT TOOK PLACE.
>> GO AHEAD.
>> I WAS GOING TO SAY, THAT IS
THE ADVICE THAT I HAVE GIVEN TO
THE STAFF AND JAMIE IS AS SMART
A CONSTITUTIONAL EXPERT AS ANY
IN THE COUNTRY ON THIS, BUT I
WOULD NOT TAKE BARR UP THERE
ALONE AND LET HIM SPIN THIS
UNDER THE FIVE-MINUTE RULE IN
THE WAY HE’S DONE IT.
I CAN JUST IMAGINE WHAT HIS
ANSWERS WILL BE PARTICULARLY FOR
THE FOUR MOST POIGNANT AREAS OF
QUESTIONING ON THE OBSTRUCTION
WHERE MUELLER SAID HE THOUGHT
THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
OF OBSTRUCTION.
OF OBSTRUCTION. I WOULDN’T GIVE HIM THAT STAGE.
I WOULD SAY THAT’S PART OF A
SYSTEMIC PROCESS WE’RE GOING TO
UNDERTAKE BUT WE WANT ACCESS TO
MUELLER, WE WANT ACCESS TO
McGAHN, WE WANT ACCESS TO THE 6E
MATERIAL AND THE UNREDACTED
MATERIAL AND THERE’S A WHOLE
SLEW OF OTHER WITNESSES WE WANT
ACCESS TO.
ACCESS TO. THAT’S PART OF THE LARGER
DISCUSSION HERE.
DISCUSSION HERE. JUST HAVING BARR ALONE I’M NOT
SURE HOW MUCH ADVANCES THE
DISCUSSION HERE.
DISCUSSION HERE. >> I THINK JULIAN MAKES AN
INSIGHTFUL POINT.
INSIGHTFUL POINT. IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO SEE
BARR CROSS-EXAMINED ON HIS
REPRESENTATION OF WHAT’S IN THE
MUELLER REPORT WITH WHAT IS
ACTUALLY IN THE MUELLER REPORT
WHEN HE REPEATED TRUMP’S
FAVORITE PHRASE NO COLLUSION AND
THEN JUXTAPOSED THAT AGAINST
MUELLER’S STATEMENTS HE WASN’T
DEALING WITH THE QUESTION OF
COLLUSION, BUT THE QUESTION OF
CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY.
CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF CASES LIKE
THAT WHERE IT’S VERY CLEAR THAT
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS ENGAGED
IN SPIN AND BEING A PUBLICIST
FOR THE PRESIDENT RATHER THAN
ACTING AS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
THE UNITED STATES.
>> YOU KNOW,NY APPLEBAUM IN OUR
RECENT HISTORY OF IMPEACHMENT
PROCEEDINGS, WE, IT HAS NOT
INVOLVED A FIRST-TERM PRESIDENT.
IT’S ALWAYS BEEN A SECOND TERM
PRESIDENT, NOT RUNNING FOR
RE-ELECTION.
RE-ELECTION. WHAT DO YOU SEE THAT DYNAMIC OF
IT BEING A FIRST-TERM PRESIDENT
IN THE MIDDLE RIGHT NOW OF A
PRESIDENTIAL RE-ELECTION
PRESIDENTIAL RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN?
CAMPAIGN? HOW DO YOU SEE THAT AFFECTING
THE QUESTION OF IMPEACHMENT?
>> IT TAKES ME BACK TO ANDREW
JOHNSON WHO WAS IN HIS FIRST
TERM A PARTIAL TERM.
AND WAS A LOT CLOSER TO HIS
RE-ELECTION WHEN THE HOUSE
FINALLY PULLED THE TRIGGER ON
IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM.
IMPEACHMENT IS A SEPARATE
PROCESS FROM ELECTORAL
PROCESSES.
PROCESSES. IT’S A WAY TO WEIGH A
PRESIDENT’S FITNESS FOR OFFICE
AND WHETHER OR NOT HE’S
COMMITTED HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS.
MISDEMEANORS. AN ELECTION CAN’T RESOLVE THAT
FOR YOU.
FOR YOU. IF A PRESIDENT HAS DONE THAT AND
GETS A MAJORITY OF VOTERS TO
BACK HIM, THAT IS PERILROUS IN
ITS OWN RIGHT.
THAT’S WHY THERE’S A SEPARATE
AND ALTERNATE PROCESS.
YOU CAN WATCH ATTORNEY GENERAL
BARR HERE TRY TO PROVOKE A
CONFRONTATION WITH CONGRESS, TRY
TO STONEWALL AS MANY
ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS ARE
STONEWALLING ANY KIND OF
COOPERATION.
COOPERATION. AND IT’S HARD NOT TO CON INCLUDE
THEY’RE TRYING TO RUN OUT THE
CLOCK AND PUSH THIS INTO 2020.
THAT’S A REAL CHALLENGE FOR THE
HOUSE.
HOUSE. >> THAT’S EXACTLY RIGHT.
IT IS A CHALLENGE FOR THE HOUSE
AND THE STONEWALL ISSUE
ENFORCING SUBPOENAS ARE A
CHALLENGE.
CHALLENGE. THE REASON I THINK BARR’S
STRATEGY OF RUNNING THE CLOCK
AND TRYING TO STONEWALL IS
PROBABLY GOING TO BE A MISTAKE,
THERE ARE LOTS OF WITNESSES THEY
CAN STOP.
CAN STOP. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU TALKED ABOUT
DEUTSCH BANK BEING SUBPOENAED BY
THE NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL,
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CAN DO
THAT AS THEY CAN FOR LOTS OF
OTHER WITNESSES.
OTHER WITNESSES. THEY ARE BREATHING LIFE INTO
THIS ISSUE THEY’RE TRYING TO PUT
IT AWAY.
IT AWAY. >> WE’LL LEAVE IT THERE FOR THIS