President Trump, White House, Chairman discussed on Larry O'Connor

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

Latest and his very unique and informed perspective on these things. Also, Laura Ramirez drained she is a conservative running for the school board of Fairfax county. And she will join us in the for o'clock hour along with Phil Kerpen, president of American commitment who says it's time to end federal subsidies for electric cars, and I am with him on that all of that coming up on today's program. But right now, let's circle back to that first story this escalation not just in the investigation into the investigators there during a spy gate, but also the the war between the Democrats in the house and. The White House. Over these endless committees endless investigation, endless subpoenas of the Trump White House, Stephen grows as the special assistant to President Trump and also deputy press secretary, and he joins us now from sixteen hundred Pennsylvania, mister gross. Thanks for joining us. Thanks for having me on. Well. I'm seeing the latest hear Mr. grows in that. Is that the White House counsel has informed Mr. Nadler's committee that no way you're not complying with any of these subpoenas? How how extensive is this? What what will you provide the house, and what are you drawing the line on while as to this particular item? You know, this is part of Sherman. Neither 's Russia redo investigation. You know, it wasn't as if enough was done by Mr. Muller and all of FBI agents and all of his prosecutors over two years and thirty five million dollars and a four hundred page report chairman Adler now things that he's going to rep. Locate this investigation somehow and find something that Bob Muller didn't. And so this letter was away of the White House saying back to him politely. You know, thanks, but no, thanks. You know, you you don't have a legitimate legislative purpose in recreating a criminal investigation. That's already been completed and already exonerated the president. But always if you do come up with a legitimate legislative purpose for an oversight request were here. And and we'll listen, but until then don't expect a great deal of help from us. You know, let's explore that because I find that to be very interesting and compelling constitutional argument here, you know, Mr. Nadler is going on television. You can't not turn on Cable News Network and not seem giving an interview some kind of he constantly says, that's the whole point. Well, yeah. Well, he keeps saying we need to do with the president. Did we need to get to the bottom of it? We need to get the bottom of the investigation. That's not really his role. Is it? I mean, what is the judiciary committee's job in terms of its functionary purpose to the legislative process. I mean, it's it's clear that the chairman Adler, and and other chairman are are doing what I would call oversight via press release. I mean anything that they can do to get in front of a Bank of cameras. I mean, I don't know if you've ever worked on the hill. I worked on the hill. I know the game and there's four hundred thirty five people running around trying to get attention is to get that precious golden airtime and the way you do. It is behave the way the chairman now there's been behaving, which is, you know, you know, having sound and running to the microphones chairman Nadler is not the department of Justice. The judiciary committee is not a grand jury. They are an oversight body that should be working on any number of of laws to improve our Justice system or the criminal code or the things that fall within their jurisdiction. Action. They are not a prosecutor or US attorney's office. So they shouldn't be trying to recreate an investigation that's been over for about a month now. And by the way, they're also not an investigative body. And I find it fascinating Stephen grows that just a year ago when the cavenaugh hearings were going on you had Democrats in the Senate saying, hey, we need to give this to the FBI because we're just a legislative committee. We can't investigate we just hold hearings. But here now, we have the House Judiciary committee taking on the mantle of an investigative body. Right. They're they're they're saying, okay. Justice department investigations done. Now, it's our turn. We're truly through the looking glass here where you know, the the senators were right when they did what they did like they are not prosecutors or investigators in the in the real sense of the term. So they wanted to refer things over to the FBI to look at particular allegation in this case, the FBI or lots of agents and the Justice. Department through a special counsel has already done this investigation. And now the legislative ranch wants to think that it can now do the same investigation. And somehow it be different actually when you and I both know Larry chairman Nadler already has his conclusion in mind. I mean, it's not like he's trying to get to the truth of something. He already knows his views about the president. So what exactly are they investigating when they already know what their result is? Is it possible that chairman Nadler and the Democrats in the house their game here is that they expected the White House response like this. They expect the White House to say no, we've already had the investigation and really what the end game for the Democrats is we tried we asked. So now we have to have an impeachment hearing is that really what's the play. Do you think? Well, I'm I what I know for sure or what what I can definitely infer from their behavior is that they love to ask for documents or information to which they have zero legal right to which they know no judge would compel. And then when they don't get those documents go to the microphones and complain and stamp their feet and eat fried chicken out of a bucket in the middle of a hearing room to say, we are not getting the documents that we've asked for whether they've got some grander design about impeachment. Who knows it depends on who you're if you're talking to, you know, the one of the left wing nuts in that party or whether you're talking to leadership or whether you're talking to one of the democratic presidential primary candidates. You know, they're all over the map. So we'll see we'll see their grand design. I guess when it comes out. But I don't know. That one exists at present speechless. Even grow special assistant to President Trump and deputy press secretary what I like about the letter that was delivered to the house is that I'd like to talk about this bit. Is this issue transcends this administration? This is not necessarily about President Trump. This is about the presidency. This is about the separation of powers, and the precedent that could be set here talk about that for a minute. And how the scope of this subpoena request really would would make an impossible for a president to do his job. Yeah. I mean, kind of the secret that the dare not speak its name around here is that the current White House is doing nothing more than relying on the same legal precedent as the prior White House under President Obama both of our Whitehouse's rely upon the department of Justice, particularly the office of legal counsel to advise us on what is and is not executive privilege. What is or is not a legitimate, you know, request from from an oversight committee because we want to know what can and cannot be defended. If we have to go to the third branch of government, the article three federal judges. So when during the Obama administration Obama stopped his social secretary from having to go to Capitol Hill to testify about this ally. He gatecrashing incident, you know, they they invoked in -secutive privilege about that. Well, played Stephen groves. That's true. And when the Obama Justice department in twenty fourteen handed down and opinion from the office of legal counsel that one of Obama's assistance to the president. You know, a senior White House official could not be compelled to go to the hill and testify. We're relying on the same precedent that the Justice department going back beyond Obama beyond Bush. I mean, William Rehnquist when he was a DOJ official wrote one of the original opinions on on these matters. So we're not inventing these things the president isn't behaving imperiously the way that the chairman neither accused him of behaving today. The president and his White House counsel's office is simply following the law. Protecting executive branch equities such as executive privilege and confidential communications. It's it's no different than any other president. And you're quite right. These are precedents that need to be protected. Not just for the current president. See but for future presidencies as well. If the obviously I don't think mister Nadler or the leadership of the house are going to respect the president's position here, and they're going to continue this kind of behavior. What does this do to the people who work in the White House? I know it's it's challenging to get people to work in the administration right now, partly because of the senate's behavior dragging their feet on so many of the confirmations. It's unprecedented. What they've gone through. But isn't this also sending a signal to potential hires potential people that you could be getting to work with the administration that if you work in the White House, you're going to be harassed by constant constant interference and calls for your internal communications. Nobody wants to walk into that. It's it's very difficult. I mean, every every congress, whether it's Republican or democrat, Democrats engages in some level of oversight. All that we ask is it that oversight be based on a legitimate legislative purpose, and I'm probably at some point or another both parties on the hill are guilty of string beyond a legitimate legislative purpose, but as long as you know, members of the house. And they're chairman insist on demanding to see documents that they're not allowed to have or demand to have senior officials or other White House officials, you it'd be dragged up the hill to be to testify about what they're working on. You know, it is a bit of a chilling effect. I mean who wants to to who would want to come and be White House counsel? When you see what they're doing to Don Mcgann, or when they're demanding Stephen Miller, come up to the hill and talk about immigration policies. You know, that's not. That's not why people come to serve in the White House. Yeah. Yeah. I completely agree with you. And I think that that's kind of an underlying problem here with with the behavior of the Democrats, and sadly, a small handful of Republicans still in this town in their treatment of people who do make that sacrifice in work for it administration. Because it's not always, you know, I'm sure you would agree Stephen grows. It's not always a party there when you're doing a job like this. So I I it bothers me that they are. They are putting that chilling effect on potential hires for administer. Gratien? Well, it's an it's an honor to serve, you know, the president has priorities. We are trying to execute those priorities for the American people. We're going to have to suffer some of the slings and arrows that come with the job. I guess that's the nature of the beast. But we only ask that, you know, our friends down Pennsylvania Avenue be reasonable. Don't try to redo a criminal investigation, which is over. And let's see if we can move forward on other priorities like infrastructure like lowering drug prices and doing all the things that the American people elected both the president and those members of congress to do. Thank you for joining us. Stephen gross. He is a special assistant to President Trump and also deputy press secretary and appreciate you giving us your time from sixteen hundred Pennsylvania today. Thank you for having me on you bet that Stephen groves, and I just want to remind you as this is a very important topic for us this latest development now with the White House saying, no, wait, Jerry Nadler. No, wait, Nancy Pelosi. Also in addition to that move today the. Doing war of words of between John Brennan. Now, the former CIA director and James Comey where the Brennan's now trying to throw Komi under the bus more revelations about the investigation into the Trump campaign during the two thousand sixteen election and more about that investigation of where it may actually lead Tony Schaffer, former CIA trained, senior intelligence officer and retired Lieutenant Colonel from the army he will be joining us at five o'clock in studio for lengthy conversation about all of those things I know you care about that. So you're gonna wanna be here five o'clock for that. It's now three twenty. Let's check in with Ed Rodriguez. He is in the Hague dean carpet cleaning traffic.

Coming up next