Articles

Jerrold Nadler On Holding Barr In Contempt: We Are In A ‘Constitutional Crisis’ | Deadline | MSNBC


WHAT’S THE ECONOMY LOOK LIKE BY THE TIME THEY GET AROUND. THE TIME THEY GET AROUND. IT’S NOT JUST THE PRESIDENT BUT IT’S NOT JUST THE PRESIDENT BUT REPUBLICANS PAY A PRICE. REPUBLICANS PAY A PRICE.>>FOR DOING NOTHING.>>FOR DOING NOTHING.>>ING FOR DOING NOTHING –>>ING FOR DOING NOTHING –>>THIS WAS A VERY –>>THIS WAS A VERY –>>THEY MAY NOT PAY THE PRICE>>THEY MAY NOT PAY THE PRICE NOW, BUT IN THE NEXT ELECTION. NOW, BUT IN THE NEXT ELECTION.>>TO MOVE A CONTEMPT CITATION>>TO MOVE A CONTEMPT CITATION AGAINST THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF AGAINST THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES. THE UNITED STATES. WE DID NOT RELISH DOING THIS, WE DID NOT RELISH DOING THIS, BUT WE HAVE NO CHOICE. BUT WE HAVE NO CHOICE. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR, HAVING ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR, HAVING PROVED HIMSELF TO BE THE PROVED HIMSELF TO BE THE PERSONAL ATTORNEY TO PRESIDENT PERSONAL ATTORNEY TO PRESIDENT TRUMP RATHER THAN THE ATTORNEY TRUMP RATHER THAN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, BY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, BY MISLEADING THE PUBLIC AS TO THE MISLEADING THE PUBLIC AS TO THE CONTENTS OF THE MUELLER REPORT CONTENTS OF THE MUELLER REPORT TWICE, BY NOT BEING TRUTHFUL TWICE, BY NOT BEING TRUTHFUL WITH CONGRESS, HAS SHOWN HIMSELF WITH CONGRESS, HAS SHOWN HIMSELF TO BE THE PERSONAL ATTORNEY OF TO BE THE PERSONAL ATTORNEY OF THE UNITED STATES RATHER THAN THE UNITED STATES RATHER THAN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. NOW HE HAS TAKEN A MUCH GREATER NOW HE HAS TAKEN A MUCH GREATER STEP FARTHER IN TURNING THE STEP FARTHER IN TURNING THE ENTIRE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ENTIRE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE INTO AN INSTRUMENT OF — OF INTO AN INSTRUMENT OF — OF TRUMP PERSONALLY RATHER THAN AN TRUMP PERSONALLY RATHER THAN AN INSTRUMENT OF JUSTICE AND A INSTRUMENT OF JUSTICE AND A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED STATES. STATES. BY SEEKING TO EVADE, TO BAR ALL BY SEEKING TO EVADE, TO BAR ALL SUBPOENAS, AND THE PRESIDENT SUBPOENAS, AND THE PRESIDENT SAID IT, THAT THEY WILL RESIST SAID IT, THAT THEY WILL RESIST ALL SUBPOENAS, NOT JUST WITH ALL SUBPOENAS, NOT JUST WITH REFERENCE TO THE MUELLER REPORT REFERENCE TO THE MUELLER REPORT OR TO THE RUSSIAN ATTACK ON OUR OR TO THE RUSSIAN ATTACK ON OUR DEMOCRACY, BUT WITH REFERENCE TO DEMOCRACY, BUT WITH REFERENCE TO ANYTHING. ANYTHING. WITH REFERENCE TO THE DEPARTMENT WITH REFERENCE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE’S TURN AROUND ON OF JUSTICE’S TURN AROUND ON THEIR POSITION IN COURT ON THE THEIR POSITION IN COURT ON THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT. AFFORDABLE CARE ACT. TO REFERENCES OF INVESTIGATIONS TO REFERENCES OF INVESTIGATIONS OF SECURITY CLEARANCES. OF SECURITY CLEARANCES. TO REFERENCES TO THE — THE TO REFERENCES TO THE — THE DECISIONS TO TEAR BABIES AWAY DECISIONS TO TEAR BABIES AWAY FROM THEIR MOTHERS AT THE FROM THEIR MOTHERS AT THE BORDERS, TO EVERYTHING. BORDERS, TO EVERYTHING. THEY ARE UNIFORMLY REJECTING THEY ARE UNIFORMLY REJECTING SUBPOENAS FROM CONGRESS. SUBPOENAS FROM CONGRESS. THIS MEANS THAT THEY HAVE THIS MEANS THAT THEY HAVE DECIDED TO OPPOSE THE ROLE OF DECIDED TO OPPOSE THE ROLE OF CONGRESS AS A COORDINATE BRANCH CONGRESS AS A COORDINATE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT REPRESENTING THE OF GOVERNMENT REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. AMERICAN PEOPLE. THEY ARE STONE WALLING THE THEY ARE STONE WALLING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM INFORMATION. INFORMATION. THIS CANNOT BE. THIS CANNOT BE. WE CANNOT HAVE A GOVERNMENT WE CANNOT HAVE A GOVERNMENT WHERE ALL THE INFORMATION IS IN WHERE ALL THE INFORMATION IS IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. WHERE AMERICA AND CONGRESS ARE WHERE AMERICA AND CONGRESS ARE STONE WALLED FROM INFORMATION STONE WALLED FROM INFORMATION THEY NEED TO MAKE DECISIONS AND THEY NEED TO MAKE DECISIONS AND KNOW WHAT THEY NEED. KNOW WHAT THEY NEED. WHILE THIS IS STONE WALLING WHILE THIS IS STONE WALLING INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO THE RUSSIAN ATTACK ON OUR DEMOCRACY RUSSIAN ATTACK ON OUR DEMOCRACY OF 2016, WITH RESPECT TO THE OF 2016, WITH RESPECT TO THE PRESIDENT’S CAMPAIGN, PRESIDENT’S CAMPAIGN, COOPERATION WITH THAT ATTACK. COOPERATION WITH THAT ATTACK. TO THE PRESIDENT’S OBSTRUCTION TO THE PRESIDENT’S OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IN SEEKING TO STOP OF JUSTICE IN SEEKING TO STOP THE INVESTIGATION OF THAT THE INVESTIGATION OF THAT ATTACK, IT GOES FAR BROADER THAN ATTACK, IT GOES FAR BROADER THAN THAT. THAT. IT’S AN ATTACK ON THE ABILITY OF IT’S AN ATTACK ON THE ABILITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO KNOW WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO KNOW WHAT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH IS DOING THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH IS DOING AND TO HAVE RESPONSIBLE AND TO HAVE RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT. GOVERNMENT. IT IS AN ATTACK ON THE ESSENCE IT IS AN ATTACK ON THE ESSENCE OF OUR DEMOCRACY, AND WE MUST OF OUR DEMOCRACY, AND WE MUST OPPOSE THIS WITH EVERY FIBER OF OPPOSE THIS WITH EVERY FIBER OF OUR BEING. OUR BEING. THAT’S WHY WE TODAY REFERRED A THAT’S WHY WE TODAY REFERRED A CONTEMPT CITATION TO THE HOUSE CONTEMPT CITATION TO THE HOUSE FLOOR. FLOOR. THE HOUSE WILL HAVE TO VOTE THAT THE HOUSE WILL HAVE TO VOTE THAT CONTEMPT CITATION TO BEGIN THE CONTEMPT CITATION TO BEGIN THE COURT BATTLE. COURT BATTLE. THERE CAN BE NO HIGHER STAKES THERE CAN BE NO HIGHER STAKES THAN THIS ATTEMPT TO — TO THAN THIS ATTEMPT TO — TO ARROGATE ALL POWER TO THE ARROGATE ALL POWER TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, AWAY FROM EXECUTIVE BRANCH, AWAY FROM CONGRESS AND MORE IMPORTANT AWAY CONGRESS AND MORE IMPORTANT AWAY FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. WE’VE TALKED FOR A LONG TIME WE’VE TALKED FOR A LONG TIME ABOUT APPROACHING A ABOUT APPROACHING A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS, WE ARE CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS, WE ARE NOW IN IT. NOW IN IT. WE ARE NOW IN A CONSTITUTIONAL WE ARE NOW IN A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS. CRISIS. BENJAMIN FRANKLIN IN 1787 WAS BENJAMIN FRANKLIN IN 1787 WAS ASKED, WHAT TYPE OF GOVERNMENT ASKED, WHAT TYPE OF GOVERNMENT HAVE YOU GIVEN US, SIR, BY A HAVE YOU GIVEN US, SIR, BY A WOMAN WHO ASKED HIM THE WOMAN WHO ASKED HIM THE QUESTION, HE SAID A REPUBLIC QUESTION, HE SAID A REPUBLIC MA’AM, IF YOU CAN KEEP IT. MA’AM, IF YOU CAN KEEP IT. NOW IS THE TIME OF TESTING NOW IS THE TIME OF TESTING WHETHER WE CAN KEEP A REPUBLIC WHETHER WE CAN KEEP A REPUBLIC OR WHETHER THIS REPUBLIC IS OR WHETHER THIS REPUBLIC IS DESTINED TO CHANGE INTO A MORE DESTINED TO CHANGE INTO A MORE TA RANT CAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT TA RANT CAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT AS OTHERS HAVE OVER THE AS OTHERS HAVE OVER THE CENTURIES. CENTURIES. WE MUST RESIST THIS, THIS IS WE MUST RESIST THIS, THIS IS BROADER THAN REPUBLICAN OR BROADER THAN REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRATIC OR THE RIGHTS OF DEMOCRATIC OR THE RIGHTS OF CONGRESS, THIS IS WHETHER WE CAN CONGRESS, THIS IS WHETHER WE CAN PUT LIMITS ON THE PRESIDENT, ANY PUT LIMITS ON THE PRESIDENT, ANY PRESIDENT, AND HOLD THE PRESIDENT, AND HOLD THE PRESIDENT, ANY PRESIDENT, PRESIDENT, ANY PRESIDENT, ACCOUNTABLE ACCOUNTABLE ACCOUNTABLE. ACCOUNTABLE. THAT’S WHAT’S AT STAKE HERE WE THAT’S WHAT’S AT STAKE HERE WE CANNOT FLINCH. CANNOT FLINCH.>>IF YOU’RE IN A CONSTITUTIONAL>>IF YOU’RE IN A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS WHY ARE YOU RESISTING CRISIS WHY ARE YOU RESISTING MOVING FORWARD WITH IMPEACHMENT? MOVING FORWARD WITH IMPEACHMENT?>>WELL, I’M NOT GOING TO TALK>>WELL, I’M NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT IMPEACHMENT BUT THE SHORT ABOUT IMPEACHMENT BUT THE SHORT ANSWER IS, THAT MAY NOT BE THE ANSWER IS, THAT MAY NOT BE THE BEST ANSWER IN THIS BEST ANSWER IN THIS CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS. CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS. THERE ARE A LOT OF THERE ARE A LOT OF CONSIDERATIONS FOR THAT AND THAT CONSIDERATIONS FOR THAT AND THAT MAY NOT BE THE BEST ANSWER FOR MAY NOT BE THE BEST ANSWER FOR THIS CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS. THIS CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS.>>WHAT WOULD BE THE BEST>>WHAT WOULD BE THE BEST ANSWER? ANSWER?>>IF YOU’RE NOT TALKING ABOUT>>IF YOU’RE NOT TALKING ABOUT IMPEACHMENT RIGHT NOW, THIS GOES IMPEACHMENT RIGHT NOW, THIS GOES TO THE FLOOR NEXT WEEK — TO THE FLOOR NEXT WEEK –>>THIS WILL GO TO THE FLOOR>>THIS WILL GO TO THE FLOOR RAPIDLY, I DON’T KNOW IF IT’S RAPIDLY, I DON’T KNOW IF IT’S NEXT WEEK BUT IT’LL BE ON THE NEXT WEEK BUT IT’LL BE ON THE FLOOR SOON. FLOOR SOON.>>HOW DOES THAT WORK WITH>>HOW DOES THAT WORK WITH POSSIBLY DON McGHAN, HOW DO YOU POSSIBLY DON McGHAN, HOW DO YOU BALANCE THAT? BALANCE THAT?>>WE’LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS.>>WE’LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS. WE’RE STILL PLANNING TO HAVE WE’RE STILL PLANNING TO HAVE MR. McGAHN APPEAR BEFORE US, MR. McGAHN APPEAR BEFORE US, HAVE MR. MUELLER APPEAR BEFORE HAVE MR. MUELLER APPEAR BEFORE US. US. THE PRESIDENT HAS MADE THAT MORE THE PRESIDENT HAS MADE THAT MORE DIFFICULT BY ORDERING MUELLER DIFFICULT BY ORDERING MUELLER NOT TO APPEAR AND BY ORDERING NOT TO APPEAR AND BY ORDERING McGAHN NOT TO SUBMIT DOCUMENTS McGAHN NOT TO SUBMIT DOCUMENTS WE’VE SUBPOENAED. WE’VE SUBPOENAED. THE WHITE HOUSE MAKES A THE WHITE HOUSE MAKES A NONSENSICAL CLAIM THIS MORNING, NONSENSICAL CLAIM THIS MORNING, THEY SAY THEY’RE EXECUTIVE THEY SAY THEY’RE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. PRIVILEGE. MOST OF THEM ARE NOT EXECUTIVE MOST OF THEM ARE NOT EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. PRIVILEGE. AND REMEMBER SOMETHING ABOUT AND REMEMBER SOMETHING ABOUT EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. IT’S NOT — IT’S NOT A BLANKET IT’S NOT — IT’S NOT A BLANKET BAR. BAR. NIXON — IN THE NIXON CASE, THE NIXON — IN THE NIXON CASE, THE TAPES, YOU ALL REMEMBER OR HAVE TAPES, YOU ALL REMEMBER OR HAVE READ ABOUT THE TAPES, THESE WERE READ ABOUT THE TAPES, THESE WERE THE MOST SENSITIVE TO EXECUTIVE THE MOST SENSITIVE TO EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. PRIVILEGE. THEY WERE PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS THEY WERE PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND HIS BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND HIS ADVISERS AND THE SUPREME COURT ADVISERS AND THE SUPREME COURT RULED 8 TO NOTHING THAT THE RULED 8 TO NOTHING THAT THE INTEREST TO THE PUBLIC AND INTEREST TO THE PUBLIC AND JUSTICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY JUSTICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY OUTWEIGHED THE INTEREST OF THE OUTWEIGHED THE INTEREST OF THE PRESIDENT AND PRIVACY AND PRESIDENT AND PRIVACY AND ORDERED THOSE TAPES REVEALED. ORDERED THOSE TAPES REVEALED. OF COURSE, WHEN THE TAPES WERE OF COURSE, WHEN THE TAPES WERE REVEALED IT HEADS TOLED TO NIXON REVEALED IT HEADS TOLED TO NIXON RESIGNATION. RESIGNATION. NUMBER TWO, EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE NUMBER TWO, EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IS DESIGNED TO GET CANDOR TO THE IS DESIGNED TO GET CANDOR TO THE PRESIDENT ONCE HIS ADVISERS PRESIDENT ONCE HIS ADVISERS ADVISE HIM. ADVISE HIM. ONCE THE PRESIDENT SAID IT’S ONCE THE PRESIDENT SAID IT’S OKAY TO SHARE THAT INFORMATION OKAY TO SHARE THAT INFORMATION WITH THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION, WITH THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION, WITH YOUR PRIVATE ATTORNEY, WITH WITH YOUR PRIVATE ATTORNEY, WITH WHOEVER, ONCE IT’S BEEN WHOEVER, ONCE IT’S BEEN PUBLISHED, THERE IS NO MORE PUBLISHED, THERE IS NO MORE PRIVILEGE BECAUSE IT’S DONE PRIVILEGE BECAUSE IT’S DONE ALREADY. ALREADY. EVERYTHING WE HAVE REQUESTED, EVERYTHING WE HAVE REQUESTED, THE UNREDACTED PART — ALL THE THE UNREDACTED PART — ALL THE MATERIAL IN THE REDACTED PARTS MATERIAL IN THE REDACTED PARTS OF THE MUELLER REPORT, ALL THE OF THE MUELLER REPORT, ALL THE MATERIAL WE REQUESTED IN THE MATERIAL WE REQUESTED IN THE VARIOUS SUBPOENAS, NONE OF IT IS VARIOUS SUBPOENAS, NONE OF IT IS PRIVILEGED BECAUSE ALL OF IT PRIVILEGED BECAUSE ALL OF IT THEY WAIVED THE PRIVILEGE BY THEY WAIVED THE PRIVILEGE BY ENABLING IT TO GO PUBLIC TO ENABLING IT TO GO PUBLIC TO MUELLER OR WHOEVER. MUELLER OR WHOEVER. SO IT’S A NONSENSE CLAIM. SO IT’S A NONSENSE CLAIM. WE WILL WIN THESE COURT FIGHTS WE WILL WIN THESE COURT FIGHTS BECAUSE THE LAW IS ONE SIDED. BECAUSE THE LAW IS ONE SIDED. AND WHEN THE PRESIDENT OR AND WHEN THE PRESIDENT OR ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR OR ANYBODY ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR OR ANYBODY ELSE CITES EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE ELSE CITES EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IN THESE CASES, THEY ARE NOT IN THESE CASES, THEY ARE NOT BEING HONEST. BEING HONEST. THEY’RE NOT BEING HONEST BECAUSE THEY’RE NOT BEING HONEST BECAUSE THERE’S NO REAL CLAIM AT ALL. THERE’S NO REAL CLAIM AT ALL.>>ARE WE TO PERCEIVE THIS AS>>ARE WE TO PERCEIVE THIS AS A — IS THERE GOING TO BE A A — IS THERE GOING TO BE A COURT FIGHT YOU’LL BE FIGHTING COURT FIGHT YOU’LL BE FIGHTING AS A CIVIL CONTEMPT THEM? AS A CIVIL CONTEMPT THEM? IS THERE ANY CRIMINAL PART OF IS THERE ANY CRIMINAL PART OF THIS? THIS?>>IT’LL PROBABLY BE A CIVIL>>IT’LL PROBABLY BE A CIVIL CONTEMPT. CONTEMPT.>>WHY NOT GO WITH — SOME OF>>WHY NOT GO WITH — SOME OF YOUR COLLEAGUES HAVE YOUR COLLEAGUES HAVE SUGGESTED — SUGGESTED –>>WELL, I DON’T WANT — I DON’T>>WELL, I DON’T WANT — I DON’T>>WELL, I DON’T WANT TO ANSWER>>WELL, I DON’T WANT TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, BECAUSE I’M NOT THAT QUESTION, BECAUSE I’M NOT SURE WE WON’T. SURE WE WON’T.>>Reporter: YOU ARE NOT SURE>>Reporter: YOU ARE NOT SURE YOU WILL GO AHEAD? YOU WILL GO AHEAD?>>THAT’S RIGHT.>>THAT’S RIGHT.>>Reporter: YOU SAID THE>>Reporter: YOU SAID THE PRESIDENT RECORDED MUELLER TO PRESIDENT RECORDED MUELLER TO NOT REQUIRE, YOU SAID LAST WEEK NOT REQUIRE, YOU SAID LAST WEEK MUELLER SHOULD NOT TESTIFY? MUELLER SHOULD NOT TESTIFY?>>YES.>>YES.>>Reporter: HOW WOULD THAT MEET>>Reporter: HOW WOULD THAT MEET THAT IF MUELLER — THAT IF MUELLER — [ INAUDIBLE ] [ INAUDIBLE ]>>>NO.>>>NO.>>IT’S ONGOING.>>IT’S ONGOING.>>Reporter: ARE YOU GOING TO>>Reporter: ARE YOU GOING TO COURT AND ASK THE JUDGE TO COURT AND ASK THE JUDGE TO UNSEAL THE GRAND JURY? UNSEAL THE GRAND JURY?>>YES, WE WILL.>>YES, WE WILL.>>NOW IN EVERY PRIOR CASE, THE>>NOW IN EVERY PRIOR CASE, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS JOINED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS JOINED THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE OR I THINK JUDICIARY COMMITTEE OR I THINK SOMETIMES OTHER COMMITTEES, SOMETIMES OTHER COMMITTEES, JOINT CONGRESS IN ASKING FOR A JOINT CONGRESS IN ASKING FOR A GRAND JURY MATERIAL, IN EVERY GRAND JURY MATERIAL, IN EVERY CASE, OR THE ALL THE MAJOR CASES CASE, OR THE ALL THE MAJOR CASES THAT IT’S BEEN GRANTED, THE THAT IT’S BEEN GRANTED, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THIS ATTORNEY ATTORNEY GENERAL, THIS ATTORNEY GENERAL, BARR, SIMPLY SAID HE GENERAL, BARR, SIMPLY SAID HE WON’T DO THAT. WON’T DO THAT. HE’S NOT GIVEN A REASON WHY HE HE’S NOT GIVEN A REASON WHY HE WON’T DO IT, WHY IT’S BREAKING WON’T DO IT, WHY IT’S BREAKING PRECEDENT AND REFUSING TO PRECEDENT AND REFUSING TO SUPPORT WHAT WILL BE OUR SUPPORT WHAT WILL BE OUR APPLICATION FOR THAT, FOR THE APPLICATION FOR THAT, FOR THE GRAND JURY INFORMATION. GRAND JURY INFORMATION. HE HAS NOT SAID HE’LL OPPOSE IT. HE HAS NOT SAID HE’LL OPPOSE IT. HE SAID EITHER THEY WILL OPPOSE HE SAID EITHER THEY WILL OPPOSE IT OR TAKE NO POSITION. IT OR TAKE NO POSITION. BUT EVERY, IN EVERY PREVIOUS BUT EVERY, IN EVERY PREVIOUS CASE, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS CASE, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS JOINED THE COMMITTEE IN JOINED THE COMMITTEE IN REQUESTING THE RELEASE OF THAT REQUESTING THE RELEASE OF THAT GRAND JURY INFORMATION. GRAND JURY INFORMATION. AND IT’S ALWAYS BEEN GRANTED TO AND IT’S ALWAYS BEEN GRANTED TO THE COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE THE COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE HANDLED IT RESPONSIBLY, IT HANDLED IT RESPONSIBLY, IT HASN’T BEEN LEAKED AND IT’S BEEN HASN’T BEEN LEAKED AND IT’S BEEN USED PROPERLY. USED PROPERLY.>>[ INAUDIBLE QUESTION ].>>[ INAUDIBLE QUESTION ].>>Reporter: WILL YOU ISSUE>>Reporter: WILL YOU ISSUE SUBPOENAS TO THE OTHER FOUR SUBPOENAS TO THE OTHER FOUR FORMER WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS? FORMER WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS?>>WHEN IT SEEMS MOST ADVISABLE>>WHEN IT SEEMS MOST ADVISABLE TO DO SO. TO DO SO.>>Reporter: THIS RULE OF>>Reporter: THIS RULE OF INVOKING EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IS INVOKING EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IS A CHILLING FACTOR? A CHILLING FACTOR?>>OF COURSE.>>OF COURSE. WE’RE CONCERNED. WE’RE CONCERNED. WE’RE CONCERNED THAT THE WE’RE CONCERNED THAT THE PRESIDENT’S DECLARATION AND THE PRESIDENT’S DECLARATION AND THE APPARENT, UP, UP, INTENTION TO APPARENT, UP, UP, INTENTION TO DENY ALL INFORMATION IS GOING TO DENY ALL INFORMATION IS GOING TO BE A CHILLING EFFECT OR MORE. BE A CHILLING EFFECT OR MORE. REMEMBER, IN EVERY CASE THAT REMEMBER, IN EVERY CASE THAT PEOPLE HAVE TALKED ABOUT, PEOPLE HAVE TALKED ABOUT, WHETHER IT BE FORMER ATTORNEY WHETHER IT BE FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLZER OR LAST YEAR, GENERAL HOLZER OR LAST YEAR, WHEN THIS COMMITTEE UNDER A WHEN THIS COMMITTEE UNDER A REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED DEMAND, REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED DEMAND, ALL SORTS OF GRAND JURY ALL SORTS OF GRAND JURY INFORMATION AND FBI INTERVIEWS INFORMATION AND FBI INTERVIEWS AND ALL SORTS OF THINGS THAT AND ALL SORTS OF THINGS THAT WERE GIVEN 880,000 PAGES, IN WERE GIVEN 880,000 PAGES, IN EVERY SITUATION, THERE HAS BEEN EVERY SITUATION, THERE HAS BEEN AN ACCOMMODATION AND THERE HAS AN ACCOMMODATION AND THERE HAS BEEN MORE OR LESS INFORMATION BEEN MORE OR LESS INFORMATION GIVEN. GIVEN. THIS YEAR, WE HAVE GOTTEN NOT THIS YEAR, WE HAVE GOTTEN NOT ONE PAGE OF INFORMATION IN ONE PAGE OF INFORMATION IN RESPECT, IN REFERENCE, IN RESPECT, IN REFERENCE, IN RESPONSE, RATHER, TO ANY RESPONSE, RATHER, TO ANY SUBPOENA, NOR HAVE ANY OTHER SUBPOENA, NOR HAVE ANY OTHER COMMITTEES IN THE HOUSE. COMMITTEES IN THE HOUSE. THERE HAVE BEEN ABSOLUTELY NOT THERE HAVE BEEN ABSOLUTELY NOT ONE SINGLE PAGE HAS BEEN GIVEN, ONE SINGLE PAGE HAS BEEN GIVEN, TOTAL STONEWALLING OF CONGRESS, TOTAL STONEWALLING OF CONGRESS, A TOTAL STONEWALLING OF THE A TOTAL STONEWALLING OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. AMERICAN PEOPLE. AND THAT IS AN ASSERTION OF AND THAT IS AN ASSERTION OF TYRANNICAL POWER BY THE TYRANNICAL POWER BY THE PRESIDENT AND IT CANNOT BE PRESIDENT AND IT CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO STAND. ALLOWED TO STAND. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE TO HAVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE TO HAVE A GOVERNMENT RESPONSIVE TO THEM. A GOVERNMENT RESPONSIVE TO THEM. AND THAT MEANS THE PRESIDENT AND AND THAT MEANS THE PRESIDENT AND THE CONGRESS. THE CONGRESS.>>Reporter: THE FACTS GATHERING>>Reporter: THE FACTS GATHERING TOWARDS IMPEACHMENT — NAUK. TOWARDS IMPEACHMENT — NAUK. [ INAUDIBLE ] [ INAUDIBLE ] ? ?>>I SEE THIS AS A FACT>>I SEE THIS AS A FACT GATHERING WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT GATHERING WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT LEAD TO THAT. LEAD TO THAT. AS I SAID MANY TIMES, WE NEED AS I SAID MANY TIMES, WE NEED THE FACTS. THE FACTS. ALL THE INFORMATION AND ALL THE INFORMATION AND DECISIONS LIKE THAT OR OTHER DECISIONS LIKE THAT OR OTHER THINGS WILL BE MADE DOWN THE

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *