Warren calls on Congress to begin impeachment proceedings

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

It is the day after the Muller reports. Perhaps not surprisingly few mines have been changed. But within the Democratic Party. There is a growing debate about what to do next now that they have these four hundred forty eight pages worth of details and some of questionable conduct to impeach. You're not doing peach. That's the question now before Democrats, Elizabeth Warren, Massachusetts Senator and presidential candidate just tweeted that House Democrats shouldn't eat stored impeachment proceedings against President Trump based off of the mullahs report. So we turn now to Adam Schiff democratic congressman from Burbank, chairman of the house intelligence committee congressman where do you come down on the prospect of impeaching the president? Well, we don't have the full report yet. I think it's important for us to see the reporter Nando lying evidence. But there's certainly enough for us to have the conversation, which we plan to have in the coming week about what's the import of this Muller clearly felt that while he could not indict the sitting president that it should be put before congress and congress side there. Other remedies the remedy of impeachment. So that's a conversation. We're going to have unquestionably reports details highly unethical conduct perhaps criminal conduct when it came to obstruction of Justice, and and eagerness or willingness accept the help of a hostile for power in a normal world of that would be certainly within the realm of peachable conduct the challenge that we have is we have a Republican party in particular leadership Kevin McCarthy that place party and president of everything else they've formed affectively cocaine personality around the present. Becomes an isn't waiting for the full report, isn't that kind of a stalling tactic? Because that's going to take a while. Probably. And again, I've read it and the amount that's redacted is really not that much. Maybe about ten percent of the whole thing. If you read the entire former plus pages, he pretty much have an idea. What went on in the White House enough to decide whether you think or don't think the president ought to be impeached. Why do you need to wait for the ten percents? Not gonna add that much. Well, first of all, we're we're less well over twenty four hours since the release of the port. So I think we ought to take little more time than that to make a decision about whether we want to piecemeal preceding, the president night states. Then obviously would have very percussions and interim of me that the rest of the country's legislative agenda for the next two years, but affectively be tied up or stalled now that may be decision nonetheless. But it's not something we should do a cavalier fashioned. We yes, we have a report in which about a third of the pages contain reductions, but we can see a lot of deeply corrupt conduct of the pages that are not protected, but we still don't have any of the underlying evidence. We don't have any of the counter Chelsea report, which looks like it was compiled separately from the mother report. So there's a great deal. We still do not know and probably the most of every factor though is. How do we way an impeachment proceeding when the person's conduct may will rise to that level when you have Republican party that is utterly unwilling to scrutinize the president's conduct when such a proceeding at least at this point would be likely due to failure in the Senate. Will there are those who still feel would be important to try even if you know it's gonna fail you make the effort you get it out there. You have the hearings are you in that camp? Or no. Here's the thing. It's not a binary choice. It's not a choice either. We do in a peach mint, and where we do no oversight whatsoever. We are going to be doing all the oversight. We're going to be doing the investigative hearings. Indeed, we've been doing those already. It's just a question at this point of whether that is done in the context of impeachment or whether it's done in the context of our ordinary oversights and that decision as consequential one. And I think before we put the country through the wrenching experience of an impeachment. We need to weigh heavily just what that would mean. In terms of the effect on the entire congress in the sense of not being able to work on red and butter issues, helping families or a decent income and save for retirement and provide health care would we still be able to do that in the context of an peach. So those issues that we're going to have to grapple is. It's a decision that will be made it a higher pay grade than mine. But but it's a conversation that we're gonna have. But now that the entire report is out or or at least a large amount of it, minus the redacted material. Do you think that Bob Muller topped out by not reaching some sort of conclusion if even if he wasn't going to go ahead and take action on it? He doesn't really give his opinion, although you can read between the lines, I suppose, but he doesn't give an opinion on what he thinks off to be done. I understand why it's deeply unsatisfying for many people that mother did not applying on the ultimate question to the president committed crime. It wasn't all that surprising to me because mother is very conservative in a right way. But rather in a conservative 'institutionalised that he was going to leave a decision that momentous to the congress aware of that he would take the position that he was found by the opposite legal counsel opinion that you candidate a sitting president, and he would preserve the evidence for the time when the president is out of office and prosecutors could then decide with the prison should be prosecuted. So I don't think it's unexpected. What I do think what is unexpected and not what mother was an tipping or desiring was that attorney general bar would insert himself and era gay to himself to make that decision. Ball is turning out to be. You know, some of us this job the way Rudy Giuliani. Use is that the president's personal lawyer rather than the the highest law enforcement office in the land. And that is certainly a a service of the country. There's just too many discrepancies between what he said in the press conference. And then the actual text that everyone could read about an hour and a half later. No question about it. He misrepresented with Muller had to say why he said about the section of Justice any misrepresented with mother had to say collusion Muller makes no claim of no collusion that was something bar said because it would be pleased to the president and his allies could Trump at around the land of. But that's not at all about Muller found. He's out in fact, that there were any number of meetings between Trump campaign people on the Russians from campaign people are only too happy to see Russian help. And none of about it to the attention sorties. And yes, there were problems of proof in establishing. Criminal conspiracy. But more makes it very clear that's a different question than whether collusion occurred, which is what most lay people would consider the meeting at Trump Tower among many others who I just got the job is there enough in the performance of the attorney general thus far to make congress rethink its decision. Well, you know, I think it terms Cerny general he should have never been confirmed for the post. He certainly should not have been confirmed without recusing himself through an investigation in which you had such an obvious bias the the question that presents as you point out is what's the congress do about it Lyn one party refuses to stand up to the unethical conduct of the present. And that's not an easy

Coming up next