35 Burst results for "Nadler"
Trump set to miss required deadline for 2021 refugee quota.
"Trump administration appears to be ignoring a deadline to establish how many refugees will be allowed into the United States next year raising uncertainty about the future of the forty year old resettlement program that has been dwindling under his administration. The Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Refugee Act requires presidents to issue that determination before October first the start of the fiscal year. With only hours to go on Wednesday, the trump administration had not sheduled consultations with Congress that required before setting the annual figure. There was no immediate comment from the White House, which usually announces the target numbers or the departments of State or Homeland Security which were involved in making the determination. Democratic lawmakers blasted the administration for not meeting its obligation. Trump's violation of the nineteen eighty law will bring our refugee admissions program to a halt leaving thousands stranded abroad with their lives at risk New York representatives Jerry Nadler, who is chairman of the House Judiciary? Committee? Trump froze this year's admissions in March falsely citing a needs to protect American jobs as fall-outs from the corona virus crashed the economy. Advocates fear the government is intentionally delaying its plans for the twenty twenty one fiscal year as a way to eventually eliminate the refugee program. No more refugees can be admitted after Thursday until the president sets the ceiling for the New Year Secretary of State Mike. Pompeo said the administration is committed to the country's history of leading the world in providing a safe place for refugees. But advocates say the government's actions do not show that in addition the State Department announced last week it would no longer provide some statistical information on refugee resettlement sparking more concerns advocates say the trump administration is dismantling a program that has long enjoyed bipartisan support and has been considered a model for protecting the world's most vulnerable people.
House set to vote on marijuana legalization
"1000 representatives will vote on legalizing marijuana next month. The more act would remove cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act and raise some cannabis criminal records. Ah, floor vote on the bill would be the greatest federal cannabis reform accomplishment in 20 years. So, says Randall, Mayor of the Global Alliance for Cannabis Commerce. States would still have to vote to legalize the drug. It's already been legalized in 11 states. That Bill was introduced by House Judiciary Chair in New York Congressman Jerry Nadler last fall it past the Judiciary Committee by a vote of 24 to 10 with Democrats Republicans Matt Gates of Florida and Tom McClintock of California. The on ly Republicans to vote for the
The Big Tech Hearing Proved Congress Isn't Messing Around
"The purpose of today's hearing is to examine the dominance of Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google. Roger the covert 19 pandemic. These corporations already stood out as titans in our economy. As American families shift more of their work, shopping and communications online, These Giants stand to profit. Locally owned businesses. Meanwhile, Mom and pop stores on Main Street facing economic price is unlike any in recent history. Rhode Island Democrat David Cellini, opening today's House hearing with the heads of the world's big tech companies. Amazon's Jeff Bezos out of Apple's Tim Cook, Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg and Google Sunder Pitch I. The foremen faced hours of questions from House lawmakers over whether they've used their superpower status to crowd out competition. And enrich themselves. The House Judiciaries Antitrust committee, which Cellini chairs has been looking into that question for the last year. Joining us to talk about the hearing today is tech expert Tim Woo. He teaches at Columbia Law School and is the author of the book The Curse of Bigness, Anti Trust in the New Gilded Age. Him welcome back to press play. Thanks for having me here. Well, you've argued for a very long time that the's tech giants have gotten too big. What do you think today's hearing accomplished in terms of getting more support to break them up? Well, they I think there are you know, for the first time, putting the most intense documents right in front of them and seeing how they react, and I think what we've gotten out of them, especially on Facebook. Is already some admissions of anti competitive intent that to my mind, make the case for filing a complaint even stronger. And what were some of those admissions that you heard today. Well, Ah. Mark Zuckerberg was questioned about by Jerry Nadler about the his. Ah, why he bought Instagram and pretty much Zuckerberg admitted they were ah, dangerous competitors. We sought to eliminate them at Natalie reminded him that it's illegal to buy off competitors because I don't want to compete with them, and they left it there. But, yeah, that was, I think a big admission and the main thing I've taken from the hearing so far. But isn't that part of business of hostile takeovers and trying to squeeze out the competition isn't part of the American way of doing business, so there's a difference between beating out your competitors and buying them. And since about 18 90. It's been illegal to buy a company just because you're sick of competing with him. You know, you could imagine. Let's take Coke was tired of Pepsi People's Children, Coke and Pepsi, you know and said, All right, forget it. We'll just buy each other and, you know, settle the so so Now it's been illegal since 18 90 or so. Right. So when it comes to Facebook, what about the issues of how it Spreads misinformation, especially campaign misinformation, and, you know, fake news for lack of a better term. Yeah, I know. It hasn't so far. Um, it has a little bit sorry, especially hate speech. I think the big issue there that they're focusing on and Is this idea that that Facebook has an impunity because they have such a secure market position that they're not really afraid of advertising boycotts. They're not really afraid of people leaving That's the least a point that the House representatives were trying to make, and so therefore they don't really have an incentive to clean up their act. What about the other companies? Amazon that also has incredible market share. Can you first catalogue just how big Amazon is and how much bigger it's gotten since the current virus epidemic? Yeah, you know, the Amazon has closed in on the market cap of 1.5 trillion They have 280 billion in revenue. They have increased dramatically. Actually, stock prices increased since the beginning of the Corona virus by I don't know the exact percentage don't want to get it wrong, but by a tremendous amount, in fact, And there was one day in which Jeff Bezos gained $13 billion personally, so they are the biggest of big attack for the first part of hearing they didn't get any questions, but representative Dia Paul brought it in accusing them. Of lying in front of Congress about how they treat third party sellers and pressing bass. Those hard on how he runs his marketplace. So they they, they've got some of they've got some fire. Coming in. Yeah, I guess the problem. There is not only well they sell, you know products from third parties always there slow selling their own products, and so they are. I guess in competition with 1/3 party supplies on their own platform. How does that work? I mean, that's I think the acquisition or the problem is that people worry that Amazon has become more or less the dominant online retailer. They have some competition Homer, but you know, more or less dominant. So you make it on Amazon are Or you don't make it at all. And if that's the marketplace, the prospect of You come up with successful thing? I don't know Better mousetrap, and then Amazon makes their own copy of it. So the Amazon version of it and then sells it for less. You know, that turns into a sucker's game, and I think that's been the main complaint about Amazon is ah, less that they You know about their competitors or something but more that they have turned the marketplace into something of a rigged game for their own products. Right and a sweet noted Jeff Bezos is the world's richest man. Right now, the company is you outline is just so big. It's hard to even wrap your mind around it. Is there any way you could break up Amazon or hasn't just become too big to break up? That's a good question. You know, it hasn't been subject to a lot of discussion, probably for the reasons you suggest. Most of scrutiny of Amazon is how they treat the marketplace. I think for a true old school antitrust type who just believes that too much power to concentrated should always be broken. Would want to switch, you know, break Amazon into some kind of pieces. One way might be to break off their Web services division, which is a dominant in its space. You could also imagine, as with it and t breaking it into baby Amazons. I guess that are supposed to compete with each other. But I know it hasn't been unlike Facebook and even Google. Has been talks about how would you break them up? Think Amazon. It's been more about can they? Can you get them to run their at their market place better? And then Google. Obviously a search giant and it's become a verb. It's such an intimate part of who we are at this point again. How would you break up Google if you could It's a good question. Let me let me say that Google has come under fire this hearing both from Sicily knee on the idea that they are essentially eating their ecosystem That is to say. You know if you if you like like with Amazon actually similar that if You know, you could come up with a really successful Web service of some kind in your sort of small enough that Google will make a version of it and then send all the traffic to it so that that's the accusation against them. As for you know, what would you do to Google one You could say, don't do that. That's what the Europeans are trying to dio. Another would be to say, Well, listen, it Google, you run the search part and just leave it there. Don't do everything else. Okay. Maybe run Gmail, maybe right maps. But all these other little things that are just clones of other companies. Stay out of that, or make them be independent companies. I should add. By the way, there's you know, I'm maybe we get to this, but there's been AH, Google face us a lot of Republicans during the hearing, talking about different issues. Trying to get Google to admit that it Ah Is too friendly to China. Eyes too unfriendly to the US Pentagon. That's been another theme of this hearing is that I think should be mentioned. Well, you bring up China, and I guess the argument against breaking up these companies is that they're competing against Chinese companies, which In many cases have the backing of the state and there's there's no limit to their monopolistic practices. And so if these are global companies, should there be different rules when it comes to monopoly now than there were, you know, back in the 19th century. Yeah. Or the 20th? Yeah, that is the argument. So you know, kind of goes like this. If you break up Facebook or make fix books, life difficulty the Chinese will take over. It's kind of a national champion like argument. So we have to have our guys. Um I don't find it convincing at all. Last time we heard that kind of argument was when Japan was the all great mighty power that was going to take over everything in America. And they said it so you can't break up the tea and you can't break up IBM. I think we've had a better track record. Forcing American companies to be competitive. It's not breaking them up, at least putting him under heavy scrutiny like Microsoft and hoping a new generation arises. So yeah, I think that's a pretty lame excuse not to enforce the law that put it that way. So what do you think is going to come out of this? You know, I think from what I've heard there was some documents that were coming out of this that nobody has seen. And I think they put more pressure on the administration and also the states to file complaints. I would not be surprised if Google ends up on the receiving end of an antitrust complaint before November. And after this hearing, I wonder of Facebook's gonna get 12 or whether that's going to be something that the election decides. But, yes, I think it adds to the pressure to file actual cases as opposed to talking about it.
The Big Tech Hearing Proved Congress Isn't Messing Around
"The purpose of today's hearing is to examine the dominance of Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google. Roger the covert 19 pandemic. These corporations already stood out as titans in our economy. As American families shift more of their work, shopping and communications online, These Giants stand to profit. Locally owned businesses. Meanwhile, Mom and pop stores on Main Street facing economic price is unlike any in recent history. Rhode Island Democrat David Cellini, opening today's House hearing with the heads of the world's big tech companies. Amazon's Jeff Bezos out of Apple's Tim Cook, Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg and Google Sunder Pitch I. The foremen faced hours of questions from House lawmakers over whether they've used their superpower status to crowd out competition. And enrich themselves. The House Judiciaries Antitrust committee, which Cellini chairs has been looking into that question for the last year. Joining us to talk about the hearing today is tech expert Tim Woo. He teaches at Columbia Law School and is the author of the book The Curse of Bigness, Anti Trust in the New Gilded Age. Him welcome back to press play. Thanks for having me here. Well, you've argued for a very long time that the's tech giants have gotten too big. What do you think today's hearing accomplished in terms of getting more support to break them up? Well, they I think there are you know, for the first time, putting the most intense documents right in front of them and seeing how they react, and I think what we've gotten out of them, especially on Facebook. Is already some admissions of anti competitive intent that to my mind, make the case for filing a complaint even stronger. And what were some of those admissions that you heard today. Well, Ah. Mark Zuckerberg was questioned about by Jerry Nadler about the his. Ah, why he bought Instagram and pretty much Zuckerberg admitted they were ah, dangerous competitors. We sought to eliminate them at Natalie reminded him that it's illegal to buy off competitors because I don't want to compete with them, and they left it there. But, yeah, that was, I think a big admission and the main thing I've taken from the hearing so far. But isn't that part of business of hostile takeovers and trying to squeeze out the competition isn't part of the American way of doing business, so there's a difference between beating out your competitors and buying them. And since about 18 90. It's been illegal to buy a company just because you're sick of competing with him. You know, you could imagine. Let's take Coke was tired of Pepsi People's Children, Coke and Pepsi, you know and said, All right, forget it. We'll just buy each other and, you know, settle the so so Now it's been illegal since 18 90 or so. Right. So when it comes to Facebook, what about the issues of how it Spreads misinformation, especially campaign misinformation, and, you know, fake news for lack of a better term. Yeah, I know. It hasn't so far. Um, it has a little bit sorry, especially hate speech. I think the big issue there that they're focusing on and Is this idea that that Facebook has an impunity because they have such a secure market position that they're not really afraid of advertising boycotts. They're not really afraid of people leaving That's the least a point that the House representatives were trying to make, and so therefore they don't really have an incentive to clean up their act.
"nadler" Discussed on Mark Simone
"So you might say, well, they're really being fussy about, but they don't do that with anything liberal anything, Pro Biden. They're not facile. These guys have to answer for today, basis is going to have to answer for taking total control of Commerce in America and that kind of stuff a couple of things you gotTa do here one. Tech giants in the past, a pet at testify like Bill Gates others and Bill Gates messed up. He wasn't transparent enough to be very honest and very transparent. and. You got to look like you're trying to do the right thing. So Zuckerberg has been through this member. He's testified a few temp, so he knows. The routine, he knows the act you got to put on. So he'll be okay, They're worried about basis. He's never testified before, but I've seen basis in some meetings, he just says whatever the hell you WanNa hear, he's very good at that, and when you see him speak, he's a real nerdy guy, he's a goofy nerdy guy. You wouldn't think so but it helps them because he he'll say anything you. WanNa hear and he's very goofy and he's got this big goofy laugh. So it makes him seem humble. That makes not that he has, but it makes them seem that way. So keep an eye on today to see what happens with these tech companies. you gotta stay cool under fire. You can't get mad. Now. Here's the other thing to bear in mind this sort of subtext to all of this. There's Republicans and Democrats look like they're gonna come after these guys. But this Congress and these are tech companies with many many billions, trillions, zillions of dollars they have bought off everybody in Congress. Democrat Republican, all these congressmen. No. There are massive checks coming to their packs to their campaigns, massive checks. So nobody's really going to do anything to these guys. They have bought off everybody on both sides. Did you read this story about Moscow's? And his house. It was so sad, he was in an interview. The of the explained. You know he had this unbelievable mansion. In Beverly Hills, it is the most. Beautiful, unbelievable. L.. It's a resort and he. Spoke about how sad it was. He felt lonely. He was alone and he was so lonely in this house, and it was like the great gatsby was wandering around alone. So he sold the house. That's why he's selling that house and he remembered when he had a little tiny apartment, it was better because in that way, he slept in the factory at night and he worked harder, but he was so lonely in the big house, I. You know. I. Was just up all night crying I felt so bad for the. Edges. I wanted to do something to help them the poor guy. What the hell was that interview about it also follow this guy around. He's with five thousand was gorgeous women. You've ever seen. He knows every. Earth what the hell was he so lonely about what do you think? He really sold the House I can't figure this out. But that termites. There's some some reason really sold this house you so lonely and he was happier with this little apartment. Guys with eighty, billion, you could buy yourself any little apartment you live wherever you want.
"nadler" Discussed on Mark Simone
"In. New. York. Mark Simone, I'M W. Unless they get to bring you all the latest on our crazy mayor, our wacky governor, these ridiculous democratic hearings going on, we'll get to Alan Ilan and a whole lot more. So I thought that was great. The mayor speaking out lashing out at the police. What is wrong with him? What was his problem that they used an unmarked car? I don't know if he's ever seen the NYPD but. They they do use unmarked cars It's pretty normal I. Think That's what detectives drive around in. Isn't it? Mark Ours. And they're not unmarked cars Listen anytime. You see two guys in a black car with black wall tires. You can spot a police, car a mile away. This was a white fan, but they pulled up in the van. Now, the woman they arrested was a total criminal If all the allegations are true and apparently they are because and first of all, what does that mean? Oh, you can't have an unmarked car. The protesters have unmarked cars, the antiques. A. Anarchists use unmarked cars, these protests, I'm sure there's some legitimate protesters out there Maybe they're all gone by now, but it's the whole protests is taken over by professional. Anarchists who have lots of on markers, they got supplied cars. They got all sorts of stuff. They got a whole supply chain, they're running there. They had what we're supposed to be emergency aid cars. In other words, they bring their own ambulances, unmarked cars that were emergency police got a few of them as bar explain yesterday and found out. They were filled with weapons with Molotov cocktails, kerosene filled balloons. Industrial Grade. Fireworks to create fires protesters there. Pizza. Yeah. Peaceful. Supply cars unmarked. They can have all the unmarked cars. They want look at the that incident with the bats they got the video, you can see unmarked car, pull up, open the trunk and distribute bats to everybody, which were then used to attack the police. So they're unmarked cars. He only a word from the mayor says the thing. Police one on car. He speaking out, he's lashing out today at the Nypd what an idiot what a ridiculous lunatic this mayor is and it's like that that fat waddling Yutz that dirty slimy Jerry. Nadler today he spoke out about about in defending the protests that they arrest this protester where the hell was see for the last three weeks when everybody's getting shot and robbed in the streets if only. But where isn't that look for that? Useless people and then, but that don't worry..
Tensions between Barr and House Judiciary Committee come to head in contentious hearing
"The attorney general faced tough questions from Democrats on Capitol Hill from the get go. AH House Judiciary Committee hearing with Attorney General William Barr was confrontational. Democrats accused Bar of doing President Trump's bidding. Lawmakers questioning bar on why the president's ally, Roger Stone's jail sentence was commuted. I agree the president's friends don't deserve special breaks. But they also don't deserve to be treated more harshly. The attorney general was asked if he believed President Trump's suggestion that Democrats were rigging the 2020 election. I have no reason to think it will be. The hours long hearing was initially delayed because Chairman Jerry Nadler was in a car accident on his way to the capital. He said he and his staff are fine. The car is not In
Barr Defends Deploying Federal Agents to Protests in Showdown With House Democrats
"William Barr is defending the federal response to a rather response to protests in Portland. NPR's Carrie Johnson reports on Tuesdays Contentious House Judiciary Committee hearing. Chairman Jerry Nadler of New York, says federal agents are going after protesters to help the Trump campaign promote a law and order message. Democrats say the crowds are largely peaceful and filled with parents and military veterans. Of the attorney general says attacks on a federal courthouse in Portland are the real assaults on Justice Bill Bar says there have been multiple attempts to set the building on fire. Federal prosecutors in Portland charge 22 people with violence there last weekend. The attorney general's been clashing with Democrats who say he's working to protect the president. Bar maintains he's acting independent of the White House, even in cases involving longtime Trump allies.
AG William Barr Testifies Before House Judiciary Comittee
"U. S. Attorney General William Barr testified before the House Judiciary Committee this past day, at least to the extent that he was allowed to bar faced a lot of questions, not that much time and answering about various decisions. Made by the Justice Department as Darryl Forges reports. Attorney General William Bar on Capitol Hill Tuesday for long awaited showdown with House Judiciary Committee. This is the edges first hearing before the committee, where he came under fire for the handling of several issues, including his involvement. And the prosecutions of two allies of President Donald Trump and his moved last month to oust US Attorney Jeffrey Berman. Democratic chairman, representative Jeffrey Nadler. On offense, you're 10 year has been marked by a persistent war against the department's professional corps. In an apparent attempt to secure favors for the President, William Barr, pushing back the president has not attempted to interfere in these decisions. On the contrary, he has told me from the start. He expects me to exercise my independent judgment. To make whatever call, I think is right. And that is precisely what I've done Bar also facing a barrage of questions from Democrats on his handling of the use of force against protesters in Lafayette Square protests in Portland and the issue of police brutality, But the attorney general again, pushing back saying monuments and federal buildings need to be protected. There is a need for law order. And police should not be demonized. I'm Darryl Forges reporting.
William Barr Vigorously Defends Federal Law Enforcement Response to Protests During House Testimony
"Attorney General William Barr is defending the administration's crackdown against protesters. BAR says George Floyd's killing by Minneapolis police was horrible by the rioters and anarchists have hijacked legitimate protest defending deployments of federal agents to Portland, Oregon and elsewhere. It's his first appearance before the House Judiciary Committee. You have aided and abetted the worst failings of the president, Chairman Jerry Nadler says bars subverted the Justice Department and acted as president. Trump's watchdog bar says he's acted independently. Soccer Megane
Democrats seek to shame Barr over politics at the Justice Department
"Attorney General William Barr clashed with House Democrats. Of political interference in the Justice Department. Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler in your time in the department, you have aided and abetted the worst failings of the president are defended himself against accusations that he has intervened in high profile cases, including the sentencing of longtime Trump Advisor Roger Stone. The president has not attempted to interfere in these decisions. On the contrary, he has told me from the start. He expects me to exercise my independent judgment and that is precisely what I've done. Theater knee general also defended the decision to send federal agents to several U. S. Cities amid ongoing protests against racial
US Attorney General defends deploying federal agents to Portland
"Today accused the attorney general of formatting fear In order to help President Trump's reelection. Fielding questions that the House Judiciary Committee attorney General William Barr, says federal law enforcement is needed in places like Portland, Oregon to protect federal buildings under daily attack. We're on the defense, it's we're not out looking for trouble, Bar, says local police and some jurisdictions heir failing to provide enough protection. But committee chairman Democrat Jerry Nadler says federal agents are being used as political props. There is no precedent for the Department of Justice to actively seek out conflict with American citizens. Bars is peaceful protests have been hijacked by violent rioters.
Before House committee, AG Barr defends aggressive federal response to protests
"Democrats in Congress class with attorney general Errol William Bar today. CBS's Steve Dorsey's in Washington in a confrontational House Judiciary Committee hearing, Attorney General Bill Bar defended the Trump administration's response to protests in places like Portland, Oregon. It is by any objective measure an assault on the government of the United States chairman New York Democrat Jerry Nadler said bars response to the riots is just one example. Of him, enabling President Trump's alleged misconduct and your time in the department. You have aided and abetted the worst failings of the president. Steve Dorsey. CBS NEWS
Nadler says mob violence is a myth
"So Bill bars getting grilled by the House today as some committee on his response to the federal response to the violent demonstrations and rioters over the past few months. Nadler did everything but carry the water for the rioters earlier today. You really can't hide behind legal fictions this time, Mr Barr. It's all out in the open, where people can see what you're doing for themselves. The president wants footage for his campaign ads. And you appear to be serving it up to him as ordered. In most of these cities, the protests had begun to wind down before you marched in and confront the protests Lie in. The protesters aren't mobs, their mothers and veterans, mayors. You hear that night? Just not a mob. But all, he said it was a myth. He was interviewed on the street. Yesterday Somebody came up him and asked him to disavow Antifa and rights. Don't go. Oh, this is this violence is a myth. Meanwhile, we're go on 60 plus days of riots in Portland, the Portland police declaring, quote unquote riot every night, they officially have to declare a riot. And and he's gaslighting. None of them believe that there's actually they know violence is going on, but they refused to admit it, and it's it all has to do with an election coming up in November. And quite frankly, I'm a resident of Portland. I know that it's a very liberal progressive town, but I'm packing up and getting the out and I am wondering and scratch my head. Why, if the mayor is not going to do anything about it? Where's the federal response and this Is
Before House committee, AG Barr defends aggressive federal response to protests
"Attorney General William Barr is defending the federal response to protest in Portland and other cities. NPR's Carrie Johnson has been monitoring today's contentious House Judiciary Committee hearing. Chairman Jerry Nadler of New York, says federal agents are going after protesters to help the Trump campaign promote a law and order message. Democrats say the crowds are largely peaceful and filled with parents and military veterans. Of the attorney general says attacks on a federal courthouse in Portland are the real assaults on Justice Bill Bar says there have been multiple attempts to set the building on fire. Federal prosecutors in Portland charge 22 people with violence there last weekend. The attorney general's been clashing with Democrats who say he's working to protect the president. Bar maintains he's acting independent of the White House, even in cases involving longtime Trump
Protesters continue to clash with federal agents in Portland
"Monday night again, some protesters target the federal courthouse in Portland and again, the feds deployed gas after protesters threw fireworks and projectiles. House Judiciary Committee chairman, Democratic Congressman Jerry Nadler said. The feds were there just to provide President Trump reelection footage, Attorney General Bill Bar testified Tuesday. Riders have been armed with slingshots, Tasers and explosives but unfolds nightly around the courthouse cannot reasonably be called protest. It is by any objective measure an assault on the government of the United States Bar says federal agents helping police solve crimes in cities like Chicago in Kansas City. Is under a different authority than the federal presence currently in a city like
Democrats press defiant attorney general on response to protests, intervention in high-profile cases
"D D C C happening happening right right now now into into the the use use of of federal federal agents agents at at protests. protests. Attorney Attorney General General Bill Bill Bar Bar this this hour hour continues continues to to testify testify before before House House lawmakers lawmakers He's He's defending defending the the aggressive aggressive federal law enforcement response to civil unrest across the country in places like Portland, Oregon. Our Steve Dorsey is following the Attorney General Bill Bar, who defended the Trump administration's response to protests in places like Portland, Oregon. It is by any An assault on the government of the United States. German New York Democrat Jerry Nadler said bars response to the riots is just one example of him, enabling President Trump's alleged misconduct your time in the department. You have aided and abetted the worst failings of the president. As for the clearing of Washington's Lafayette Square of protesters, acting U. S. Park police chief Gregory Monahan testified this way in these instances we have an obligation to protect the safety of peaceful demonstrators. Maintain law and order and keep our law enforcement officers safe on that Piper the Trump administration is
Barr condemns 'rioters' in much-anticipated House testimony
"Attorney General William Barr is forcefully defending the aggressive federal law enforcement response to civil unrest around America Barr says George Floyd's killing by Minneapolis police was horrible but it has little to do with scenes playing out across the nation violent rioters and anarchists have hijacked legitimate protests bar says the justice department obligated to protect the American people and property defending deployments of federal agents to Portland Oregon and elsewhere it's his first appearance before the house Judiciary Committee which last year voted to hold him in contempt you have aided and abetted the worst failings of the president chairman Jerry Nadler says bars subverted the justice department and acted as president trump's watchdog bar says he's acted independently following the rule of law and not the president's whims Sager mag ani Washington
AG Barr focuses on police shootings, protests during House Judiciary Committee testimony
"General William Barr, testifying before the House Judiciary Committee this hour, his opening remarks focusing on police shootings and protests that sparked the calling for racial justice. According to statistics compiled by The Washington Post. The number of unarmed black men killed by police so far this year is eight. The number of unarmed white man killed by police of the same period of time is 11 at the same time Bar defended the use of federal forces deploying to cities like Portland House chair Jerry Nadler, opening the hearing, accusing Bar for unfairly targeting civil rights protesters at the Department of Justice to actively seek out conflict with American citizens. Under such flimsy pretext or for such petty purposes, the bipartisan panel will get to ask questions after opening statements,
Justice Department officials say decisions are politicized
"To justice department whistle blowers speaking in front of the house Judiciary Committee today outlining a series of allegations regarding what they see as political meddling in department affairs under president trump and Attorney General William Barr judiciary chair Jerry Nadler told those assembled it seems clear that bill bars actions are politically motivated and improper the Attorney General had simply missed judged the situation and thought that Mr Birmingham would go quietly then we might truck up this episode to simple miscommunication and incompetence but make no mistake this was not an isolated incident joining us on the komo news line is A. B. C.'s Adam Kelsey Adam let's go into what Nadler is talking about Nadler and his fellow Democrats on the house Judiciary Committee essentially accusing the Attorney General William Barr politicized apartment justice serving as something of a cheerleader attacked Dr president trump and we heard from a number of witnesses including a former deputy Attorney General under Republican president George H. W. bush said bar refusing political cronies to reverse decisions involving trump associates and the called party completed the race in his lifetime to the rule of law and we also heard some really interesting testimony from a career prosecutor in the justice department who worked on the project stones he testified that pressure from senior department officials including the Attorney General led to more lenient sentencing and anybody else would be getting solely because Roger stone was an associate of president trump that the timing of this testimony was really interesting because it comes just hours after another trump associate general Michael when he found his atheist met after ruling by and you'll score basically coming after the justice department lobbied on his behalf so we're hearing in testimony on Capitol here and we're seeing it play out in real time to dissociate the president trump being treated special are being treated differently than any other average member of the country and the president had this to say today about what he thinks about Michael Flynn saying he thinks Michael Flynn was treated horribly by a group of very bad people expired on a campaign and they should never spy on a campaign to put it mildly never happened before in the history of our country will ease basically pointing the finger back at the Obama administration saying that while he was running for president president trump was running for president back in twenty fifteen to twenty sixteen he's saying that the Obama administration's justice department was illegally looking into what was going on in his campaign and basically comes down to accusations of partisanship and politicization on both sides of the aisle I think that the Democrats really going after the justice department which has been traditionally so independent from what's happening in the White House willing to at times look into and investigate the goings on of his own party at the White House and saying that William Barkat if he's doing is constitutionally required duty just acting on the president's behalf and present health kind of playing the what about game as he looks back a few years and says he with the Obama administration's justice department I was playing politics not his own is this all coming about because of tourney General William Barr removing the district attorney Geoffrey Berman ends yeah I mean it it certainly doesn't help William Barr's case and you know although president trump has the right to dismissed any of these US attorneys at anytime you like he was the optics of the situation William Barr announcing late on a Friday night that Berman with stepping down Berman later saying I never resign showing up for work the next day on a Saturday morning and then it having to be trump who steps in to actually fire him over the weekend it seems like the trump administration there never really crossing the line when it comes to their actions always seems like there's an administrative staff but they're going about it in the wrong way in a potentially illegal waste inspired by the Supreme Court on other issues being flagged on Capitol Hill today it seems like it the governing party administrative aspect of the action that president trump and his administration you get
"nadler" Discussed on WBAP 820AM
"Twenty all my gosh this is pretty wild all the impeachment stuff is pretty wild I don't see the Democrats doing well at all as of today and now I understand why Jerry Nadler was not allowed to leave the house impeachment instigation because Jerry Nadler it was amazing Jerry Nadler was amazing and transparent in telling the United States Senate and all of its senators that if you do not vote my way you are now on American and he also called him a liar and this is a this is amazing and John Roberts was nice Chief Justice John Roberts who literally has almost no role in this even though he he does but he doesn't anything he decides can be overruled by the Senate a simple majority the Senate so he says you can do that your need to step down and the fifty one senators vote he's wrong he's he's done so he has he done with that he'll be overlooked that so he has very little power honestly almost no power whatsoever but he admonished them and nobody wants to look bad like that so he said both of you which will play all the highlights of that in a second but the big deal here is that he was obviously admonishing Nadler for saying that their treat their traitorous traders here I'll I'm gonna play this for you because this is this is really incredible but never did last night we should be surprised that here in the United States Senate actually I should say this morning right executive producer Chris the greatest a limited body in the world we we are expected to put our oath of office ahead of political expediency by the way he says the greatest but deliberate about in the world sort of which he already knowledge is it it's not like he doesn't acknowledging still says you're a bunch of friggin American trainer if if you don't vote my way listen where we expected to be honest where we are expected to protect the interests of the American people we should be surprised shocked that any senator would vote to block this witness or any relevant witness who might shed additional light on the president's obvious misconduct he's talking about voting against sipping a Bolton will you vote to allow all of the relevant evidence to be presented here well you betray your pledge to be an impartial juror would you bring ambassador both in here will you permit us to present you with the entire record of the president's misconduct what will you instead choose to be complicit in the president's cover up okay so you're you're complicit in a cover up or go back a second would you bring ambassador both in here would you permit us to present you with the entire record of the press is misconduct or will you instead choose to be complicit in the president's cover up so far I'm sad to say I see a lot of senators voting for a cover up he is sharing them this short squat weevil wobble is that sure is like that isn't that character angry from what was that the card doubles at the movie we all saw I saw I saw which **** the emotions that are in your head and you know they the guy was anger the guy was angry guy whatever he would freak out at the flames come out of it said that movie I remember what it is is a dream works with what that was a big one he's like that guy and it's amazing he thinks he can come to their house and tell them what to do it shows you the arrogance and the blindness of these folks voting to deny witnesses absolutely indefensible vote obviously a treacherous about a travel to vote against an honest consideration of the evidence of the against the president a vote against an honest trial a vote against the United States you're on American your body against the US if you don't fall my way I'm in your house telling you I'm telling you you're covering up if you don't go my way are the you want the truth or you and you must permit the witnesses or you want a shameful cover up history will judge and so the electorate area go you wanna shameful cover up because you voted against me is what he said I'll play the rebuttals from mom I got the secular and simple only rebuttals but I will play the Moblin optimize will kind of give you the context so simple only what next executive producer Chris right on make sure I get this and write or sit baloney the president's lead counsel I want but first we've been respectful of the Senate we've made our arguments to you and you don't deserve and we don't deserve what just happened Mister Nadler came up here and made false allegations against our team he made false allegations against all of you he accused you of a cover up he's been making false allegations against the president the only one who should be embarrassed Mister Nadler is you for the way you've addressed this body this is the United States Senate you're not in charge here Hey in the J. secular the president's counsel's well German Nadler talked about treacherous at about twelve ten AM January twenty second the chairman of the Judiciary Committee if this body on the floor of the Senate said executive privilege and other nonsense now think about that for a moment executive privilege and other nonsense Mr number is not nonsense these are privileges recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States that is winning that is winning Jay Sekulow continued the constitution doesn't allow which is the place what we've dealt with for the last now thirteen hours now that is a good one right in local we've dealt with this man just use my brain this piece of evidence this man right here behold look what we've been doing he should have been say look we've been dealing with for three years and we hopefully are closing the proceedings but not on a very high note only guilty people try to hide evidence so I guess when president Obama instructed Attorney General do not give information he was guilty of a crime that's the way it works pause it right there bring is that what you were United States constitution because that's not the way it was written that is not the way it's interpreted and is not the way the American people should have to live I'll tell you what's treacherous come to the floor of the Senate and say executive privilege and other nonsense we are the rest of our time I like it and then George Roberts comes out admonishes which is a a warning I think it is appropriate at this point for me to admonish both the house managers and the president's council in equal terms I had to remember that they are addressing the world's greatest deliberative body one reason it has earned that title is because its members avoid speaking in a manner and using language that is not conducive to civil discourse in the nineteen oh five swing trial of senator objected when one of the managers use the word petty **** and the presiding officer said the word ought not to have been used I don't think we need to see a spire to that higher standard but I do think those addressing the Senate should remember where they are talking by the way is placing undue.
"nadler" Discussed on WCBM 680 AM
"Just share and Nadler and polo see trying to impeach Tromp get rid of him it's people whose names we don't even know it's people who live in places we don't now and if you're gonna take those people on you have to when you when it's when it's time to actually make your move you better have everything you need because these people are going to be launching back at you with efforts to destroy you and everything you're trying to do to them because this is taking on this is actually attacking and trying to bust up a way of life that is been entrenched I mean this is the ruling class let's look at it in terms of Angelo called me yet this is the ruling class and Mr called via thinks they've already won we can never ever go back to the founding principles of this country as a majority belief by the American he believes common citizenship is no longer possible that's how that's how deeply they have infected the fabric of our culture he believes that their objective is to eliminate us what do you what is this all is overturning the results of an election what is that really it's negating I'm not offering us yeah we're deplorable is or whatever but what we are as non citizens what we are as non factors to them this effort to get rid of Donald Trump is an effort in truth to rid themselves of us as a competing political force now we got two guys that have decided to take this on bill Barnwell three trump bill barring John dorm and I don't think they want to telegraph how far along they are to these people I don't think they want to give me the heads up on all what they found and it could well be that at the end of all this we're not gonna get anything I don't have any idea but I don't think that's true based on Durham statement yesterday reaction the IG report there are more than a said what he said yesterday if I already didn't have evidence and witnesses to contradict what that won her what's that so I just I think it is such a profoundly major fading lives being attempted here what is trying to defeat the Soviet Union without firing a shot it's a much bigger undertaking than people it's not just draining the swamp it's not just getting rid of the people you know and having the people you know when this thing be punished that would be great and I share the emotion that you expressed with that but these are just the foot soldiers AS or just a little order takers these are just the people appointed to these positions didn't do the advance dirty work for the people we don't know protect the people we don't know and I'm not even talking to bomb a ton of people way above and beyond mama or any press I'll take a break come up against a long time will be back and continued.
"nadler" Discussed on What Next | Daily News and Analysis
"So let's talk a little bit about the lawyers who are testifying. Because it's kind of interesting. I was looking looking at the lineup and for people who read or listened to slate. There are a lot of familiar people who are going to be up there first up. This Guy Noah Feldman we've had him as a guest on the show before he's most famously known as the guy who went and worked on Iraq's constitution for President George W Bush when the very young right I mean they're young and to me I saw him on. This list does like in the before times this would be like a conciliatory move for the Democrats towards the Republicans. Look we have this guy who's sort of a neutral figure who Republicans have trusted. But I'm not sure that's GONNA come come off this way this time around Yeah no film is someone who is extremely well credentialed and is in an especially partisan person but he has a lot of expertise expertise on impeachment and he has written some opinion columns The show he's quite concerned about this. So you know he might be very good witness for for Democrats in this case. He's not not someone who can be slammed as a partisan but who is deeply troubled about what president trump has done and knows his stuff. Yeah there's someone else on this list who also caught my eye which is is Her name is Pamela Carlin from Stanford and she caught my eye. Because I'd heard her on asleep. PODCAST on amicus. I think it was last month. Because she was just arguing in front of the Supreme Court in favor of gay rights. Basically saying you can't be fired for being gay because it's a sex discrimination and the reason why I was struck by the fact that she was on this list was not only because she's been talked about as a potential Supreme Court justice herself which is interesting but but because she joked with the Supreme Court justices when she was up there like she made an snl reference she referred to. Its Pat in answering one of the questions which the justices this is did not get by the way but got sort of laughs from the crowd but it struck me that she might be a good witness in the same way. Fiona Hill was in that that she won't take a lot of Goth from people who are looking to push her around yet. It might help Democrats just in terms of keeping interest trysts in this hearing. You know so. It doesn't just become the sort of academic seminar that Republicans are portraying it at us. Yeah Jonathan Turley is the Republican choice. And and he's the sort of interesting guy. He testified in favor of Clinton's impeachment. You know a few years back but he also just read an article that was called. How the the Democrats can build a better case for impeachment? So I guess he's sort of new neutral a little bit but his main advice was you need to get first-hand first-hand witnesses which is interesting because it's not that the Democrats don't want firsthand witnesses. They're just being prevented from getting them. You know he's been in in the public spotlight for a while. His politics are it can be a little all over the place depending on the time He's I mean he's pretty libertarian. Overall but You Know He. He was quite critical of certain aspects of the Bush presidency torture. Now he is. He's sort of come out. Criticizing lot of allow things. Democrats have done And I think that's why Republicans are bringing them on because he's you know I think on this particular case Pretty close to their position this hearing with the Constitutional Scholars I. It seems like a way for Democrats continue with inquiry carefully. But they don't have a lot of time if they want to vote on impeachment by Christmas. Jim Says it's GonNa be a Mad Dash. The House of Representatives has already extended session by a week. It wasn't supposed to be there till December twentieth but they will know sorry. Jim No vacation for you. Well I don't know if I'm ever GONNA leave the capital because the twentieth going to be sort of the apocalypse I mean. The twentieth is going Media Apocalypse Lips. It's going to be the apocalypse because we have. That's the government funding deadline. And that's that's when it looks like they'll probably vote impeachment if they're able to get it done beforehand hand and it's also the day that the new star wars movie comes out so like everything's happening on December twentieth and we got one of these one of these. Very chilling notes from the majority leader's office. It says changing the schedule and says we will now be going till Friday December twentieth remember should be advised that votes are possible after three. PM which book your flights right. which don't book your flights and and also you're going to be four in the morning? Maybe so yeah it's GonNa be it's GonNa be a sprint. Can you just lay out. The dance moves are going to have to do Over the next three weeks to get this finished. It's a pretty clear schedule of what you do. They're going to have this. You know academic seminar with the law professors first and then they would give you know the president a day or at least a session with his lawyers to make their case against it and then they would go to drafting and amending and marking up a specific articles. They would vote it out of committee. They debate on the floor and the vote out of the floor is just something saying that especially when you want to give people enough notice to prepare their arguments and you want to space out hearings. That's usually what makes us take awhile. Two and a half weeks is especially when they're no more hearing scheduled for this very week. I mean that's really quite condensed. So you know we'll see if there's any pressure you know if there's any pressure from the public or within the caucus to space this out over Christmas but Democrats have never announced a timetable because you never announce a timetable. Well if you're not completely sure but it's pretty clear. The marching orders are to get this done before Christmas. It just seems like it's GonNa it's GonNa feel Pretty Rush Jim Newell. Thank you so much for joining me. Okay thank you. Jim Newell Covers Congress for slate. He's our senior politics writer. And that's the show if you're looking for something else to listen to right now. I highly recommend listening to those lawyers who are about to testify on Capitol Hill going to what next archives and look for Noah or Feldman we talked to him back in January about bill bar and again in May then you can go check out Dolly Olympics. Amicus podcast where you can hear. Pamela Carlin and Michael Michael Gearhart. What next is produced by Mary? Wilson Jason Billion Daniel Hewitt and Morris. Silvers I'm Mary Harris. Catch you back here tomorrow..
"nadler" Discussed on What Next | Daily News and Analysis
"It's always seemed weird at first. Even podcast seemed weird when they first came out. They were called audio blogs. You downloaded them right right to your little. MP Three player just like podcasts. Electric cars are normal now. They've got longer ranges faster recharging times and more models to choose brought electric cars. They're normal now. Learn more at normal now dot Kala yesterday after weeks of investigation. The Democrats in the House Intelligence Committee released a three hundred page report. Art It attempts to tell the story of what went on between president trump and Ukraine. The Summer Equips George Washington Ben. Franklin sums up more than one hundred hours of testimony from seventeen witnesses but if you want the cliff notes version the Democrats put that out to. Oh why these sizzle reel that they put everyone was in the loop. We followed the president's orders orders the Democrats that trailer for impeachment that they put out. Yeah compelling for your considerations so he's going to do the first words you see on the screen seen in this video. They read two weeks of testimony one story of betrayal. Slates Jim Newell. He covers congress. He says sure this may seem a little dweeby. But also it does I guess distill it into. Here's the witnesses. Here's the role each played aide with terrifying music and everything did set him on buses. Fallen Gotten I think this is all going to blow up. He we are. I mean if you weren't sure that that what trump did was bad. Maybe the music tell you that it was bad. You know because it was very frightening this report. This sizzle reel will they signal. Congress's impeachment inquiry has moved onto a new stage. It does yeah. The Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over impeachment. you know so they just kick most of the investigating work to intelligence but yeah it does have to go through judiciary now. It's Jerry Nadler. WHO HEADS UP THE JUDICIARY Committee? He's been wanting to impeach the president for months now but Nancy Pelosi insisted on taking a more cautious approach. She routed impeachment hearings to the Intelligence Committee first. So what's the VIBE. Now that it's going back to Jerry Nadler the guy they sort of kicked out of impeachment and now it has to go through him anyway. I think it's a little bit nervous. I think Democrats recognize that their best opportunity to build the case and to to move public opinion into martial support for this was in the open hearings with some of their best fact witnesses. And now it's GonNa Judiciary where you have some of the biggest clowns in Congress and and you have a chairman who is not really the best You know Disciplined master the maintaining order in a pretty unruly committee. It may just be a little sloppy and I don't think they're looking forward to that today. On the show. The Democrats in the House seem determined to vote on impeachment before Christmas despite intense political gridlock Jim Newell is going to tell us what to expect when hearings pick back up again later this morning. I'm Mary Harris. You're listening to what next stick with us. This episode is brought to you by electrify America electric cars. They're normal now. Electric TRUECAR's May seem a little different but new technology. It's always seemed a little weird at first. Even podcasts. Were Weird when I came out in early two thousands they were called audio video blogs you download them to your little. MP Three player but now people all over the world. Listen to podcasts all the time. You're doing it right now. Just like podcasts. PODCASTS electric cars. They're normal now. They've got longer ranges. Meaning they're not just for work commutes. They've faster recharging times. See you don't have to wait around all day for a charge charge and they're more models to choose from sedans. SUV's luxury vehicles even motorcycles with more affordable models and less routine maintenance they they may actually help you save money electric cars. They're normal now. Learn more at normal now dot com..
"nadler" Discussed on Skullduggery
"I wanted to use this book unrelated to the topic of the actual book but as a vehicle to help spotlight this fund since nine eleven especially you know in recent years. We've seen that they're still. FBI agents that are dying from L. Mrs manifesting now years later a cancers that are coming back and so with the death of FBI agents requires or you know obviously there of exposure exposure in aground crawling through the rubble together evidence and the like seeing these diseases now manifest which is now now with the recent deaths has put a number of families and very tough financial situations so the FBI agents association has a fund that cares for the family of a fallen FBI agents and in particular we'll send to college the children of Fallen FBI agents. It's one thing I wanted to do with this. Book is to help spotlight that so as you mentioned half the proceeds of the book we'll we'll go to that fund half of my proceeds but then also I want people to be generally aware of this fund as well especially come on the charity season the end of the year even even if they don't buy the book even if they disagree with everything I said other than nine the book. How can they contribute to the fund so you so you can go. FBI agents association website Google that there's a link there that'll take you to the Memorial College Fund and show you know ways that you can have is a real problem and I talked to an agent in the course of writing this book who said that every year since he was there at Ground Zero going through you know that terrible site he has to get tested every single year and when he goes to the doctor he's waiting to termine is my death sentence coming and again we've seen in the past few years the number of agents now dying and so this is a real problem even this so many many years later and so. I just want to the people to know about that. Appreciate you letting me talk about that. It's a great way I think to help those. Who are there out there on the front lines trying to protect the country. The book is Crossfire Hurricane Nine Josh Campbell. Thanks for joining us. Thank you very much. Thanks so much thanks thanks to New York Congressional candidate Lindsay Boylan former FBI special agent and author Josh Campbell joining us on this episode of skulduggery. Don't forget to subscribe to skulduggery on Apple Podcasts Oreb. You're listening to your podcasts and tell us what you think. Leave a review. The latest episode is also also on Sirius. Xm On the weekend check it out on police.
"nadler" Discussed on Skullduggery
"They're still a lot we can't do without the federal government infrastructure structure Investments Fixing Nitra just to name a few things relevant to my did all these thanks so other than during chromosomes sure why why is he not providing in what ways you not providing the kind of leadership that you think is required and why would you sure so in thirty years almost he's passed three pieces of legislation to those or ceremonial one is naming a building after Ted Weiss who passed away in office an FBI building to get that seat which is how he came into that seat and then in southern substantive bill is related to nine eleven which we can all get behind in terms of support for that it's in our district but meanwhile over the course of these almost three decades cades him being probably the least most productive member of Congress in terms of offering his own legislation into law. He Co sponsors a ton but so does everyone right tape really doing things leading the drive you know. New York has crumbled in a lot of ways we have an infrastructure that's fraying new gateway tunnel which he's talked a lot about but hasn't done anything thing about nature which is public housing in New York ninety percent of residents went without hot water heat last winter. It's unfathomable twenty. Ninety thousand kids are sleeping in shelters every night in the city of New York. We are ill prepared for climate change in a district that has miles of coastline for for me on a personal level. We are totally not confronting the mental health crisis. I think we have both in the city. In this country any number of issues the innovation that I've seen is happening running exclusively at the city and the state level and Gosh wouldn't it be nice to have a Congress member of Congress who took those on and partnered so but he's of national interest Chris Right now because he's the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and I gather your critique is his stewardship of the committee has been tepid and not not as aggressive as you think. It should be so spell out what you think. Nadler has failed to do that. He should have been doing from the get. Go well before charing of the judiciary because that only happened this year. I think he's had a leadership position for a long time and a platform to get things done. I think he should have called for impeachment hearings. We should have had a vote owed on that some time ago instead. We have this consistent charade. Even though I didn't see all the Corey Lewandowski testimony my understanding is that it's basically early excerpts from the mullahs report which relate to Corey Lewandowski which is basically another version of Bob Muller coming in and reading the Mullahs report which is basically another version of the release of the Mullahs report what I see and the failure of leadership that I see is that Congressman Nadler is asking someone else to do his dirty work. No more information is coming forward. There's not an expectation of new information. He said it you know you. We've heard him say in in numerous times. He's committed impeachable offenses. There's nothing new that we're we're looking forward. It's all there. The ten instances are so of obstruction of justice. We can go to the press we can. We can talk about all these ways that the president has lost the public's trust but instead of going along with that Congressman Nadler is listening to the speaker of the House because he knows that's where his source of power comes from that is not leadership for this district that overwhelmingly supports impeachment. That's not leadership in terms of making hard decisions. That's what we ask our leaders to do sometimes most times in the difficult most times and that's what we need in this case so I think he's absolutely fumbled on S. I think he's he's actually given credence through this muddled elongated prolonged process of nothingness to the idea that it's entirely Harley politicized and that is the worst and most dangerous thing he could do because it gives some people the impression that this is exclusively about politics when what it's about out is the sole in the heart of this country that we have a president who is using for personal gain completely losing the public's trust is the damage to the heart of our democracy and we have a leader because he's trying to fend me off in part. How is he doing vendrell. I mean he's trying to give this charade. You call something impeachment hearing you call something impeachment inquiry. I think that's what the DOJ responded to on Friday. You said you know you've said different things and then you write the word impeachment and you think that's going to get you better. Access goes through the courts to the information you want so that's a charade. I I've said it before. It feels like inception. It's dream within a dream. It's like the impeachment within the impeachment within you know. When are we going to get to the real thing and that's the most damaging piece the one of the things that the president has been devastatingly effective with is painting the media as fake news people start to think it they start to hear it and why would we give anything that gives the impression that we're that we are leading eating on impeachment for any other reason than it's the right thing to do and that we know it's the right thing to do. The way it looks now is is that we're back and forth. We don't know where we're going going. We're waiting for something new unfold which inherently says that we already know is in a nursing quit. The charade just vote out articles of impeachment when is avows. When is the vote. I mean months ago. When is the vote. What would be your your top couple of articles of impeachment. I mean I I I would just say we I should go forward with impeachment. Well you WanNa say what it is. You think he should be impeached for loss. I mean high crimes and misdemeanors loss of the public's definition the obstruction of justice search it only justice millions clause all of it the kitchen. I think let me ask you so impeachment has come up this week. In another context Supreme Court Justice Spread Cavenaugh New York Times reporters come out with this book which they report a new alleged incidents. There's some serious questions about the reporting but by now five or maybe maybe it's six democratic nominees have come out in favor of impeaching justice cavenaugh. What's your view on that. Should he increase it. Absolutely oh absolutely I think he should be impeached on. There should be an investigation as to why the F. B. I. Didn't follow up on these claims and why on the stand when he was giving his testimony he in essence lied about these interactions because he said they were absolutely untrue and now we hear through very credible sources in DC. You see someone I understand is least one person named is very credible that he observed Max Max dire dire yeah we'll go. The woman who is is the alleged victim has said she does not recall the incident which is significant in of itself but let me ask you is now going to debate I too. Oh yeah absolutely are there plans for debate. I mean he will use mad confidence if he doesn't. It's GonNa look bad for him. You know if he's unwilling challenged him to a debate. Will you challenge them through debate right now. Go right ahead. I challenge the Congressman Congress personality to a debate. I'm expecting it the district expecting it. They deserve a debate and they'll have one if it's me standing alone talking about the reasons why I should be representing this district absolutely I mean look. He's been a liberal stalwart. Got Elected one in one thousand nine hundred eighty two it is so he's been been there quite a while using trenched yeah. The district is amenable to him. I mean upper west side down through Greenwich Village Warnings. You think he'd knock him off. You know I spend every day in the community. I talk to people in the district door. Knock and people all are afraid about the future people feel as though they haven't been heard people feel as though the government could be doing a lot more than it is when you listen to people in US district you hear a lot of need you hear a lot about housing you hear a lot about climate change you hear a lot about real challenges that families have you hear about mental healthier the-there about healthcare and what you don't hear by and large is how. Congress in Alor has helped people in the district so there is a real need. There's a real need to listen. There's a a real need to serve. There's a real need to be of the district which is not something that I've observed or experienced having been someone who's worked in in government for the you know almost two decades. I've been in New York. This is a district like much of the kind like the country that needs someone who's going to lead the district trick. That is fast changing. You know every it includes everything from Hudson yards to hell's kitchen to to all of Wall Street which has doubled in population since the relate to thousands you have been compared to Alexandria Cossio Cortes another young woman who ran in a primary Murray and successfully knocked off and entrenched incumbent Joe Crowley. Do you see yourself as the the next. Afc I really admire what she's done and one thing I always like to say is that I don't think she won because he failed but I think she won because she's quite impressive. She's compelling. She's authentic and she's got a message. That resonates with people's needs in the district. I'm I'm not trying to be anyone else. This experience is not an easy experience it is it is an uphill climb the hallway until the end when we win. If I was trying to shape myself off of someone else I probably wouldn't succeed and I always tell my daughter that she should just be herself and trying to do courting her endorsement I would I would be honored to have her endorsement horseman. I'm not focused on it. Really I think what all is endorsing primary opponents to incumbent Conrad and I would I would welcome. I would find it in honor but I think the most important Gordon thing which is what I started with is making sure people in the community listened to and are advocated for and that means I gotta spend my time in the community ready and that is the most important thing. All politics are local. That is the most important thing you did point out to me when we spoke that you differed from AOC. Oh see on the Amazon sure yes yeah I I wanted. I wanted twenty-five thousand jobs paying one hundred fifty thousand dollars each average I think I I wanted that diversification for the economy for New York City. You know what we learned. Mostly from the financial crisis which I was a recent recent college Grad in the middle of is that we have to have a diverse economy our economy. New York is still very much dependent on the financial sector. We need to diversify defying tech in the life sciences and if you were in this space like I had been in economic development either the city of the state level we spent a good decade or so working on that and this this is not an endorsement of Amazon. It is an imperfect company but it is going to be the most one of the most important companies for the next century. We'll see I mean. I don't want to predict but it's a very important company. I wanted good paying jobs for New Yorkers and the reason why they were attracted to New York was because of our skilled employee base are diverse verse killed employee base and I thought that was a good fit so Lindsey I know you're mostly focused on your own campaign. We are now in the middle of what I'm sure. You think is the most consequential to quench. She'll presidential election. Democratic primary race in decades. Is there a candidate that you are supporting someone on the democratic side who you would like to to see succeed this president or the others and who would that be yeah. That's a tough question. I certainly have my thoughts. I'm very excited right now but Elizabeth Warren I think Bernie I'm excited to see see what comes forth. I think those two those are the most compelling right now for me. Well that would put you if you do succeed in the progressive outside of the Democratic Caucus. Would you associate yourself as the squad yeah well. What I would say is this. I'm progressive sure you WANNA go I'm saying what I'm saying is what I'm saying is. I'm a progressive. I think for me what being a progressive owes about is dealing with inequality you know aside from climate change that is the great challenge of our time the fact that if you're in the bottom twenty percents economically speaking as a kid you have less than ten percent chance of doing better than your parents that that finally in this moment in time forty percent of women from the lowest economic background are living living shorter lives than their own mother's. That's the central problem of over time and what I see quote. Unquote progressives trying to do is deal with that. that is that is the issue of our time so if you. WanNa call me progressive I'm excited about. I'm not trying to be a part of any squad. I am not cool enough. I've already given up that fight. I'm really just trying to do the right thing for my community and I think the less I tryin Ryan. pretend to be someone the better right well. I WANNA thank you for joining us. Just to recapitulate Lindsey Boylan has challenged the chairman Nadler to a debate on skulduggery. We will be following up with Nadler's staff to see if he's ready to go on that. Yes you can gal me and thank you for joining us. Thank you look we now have with US Josh Campbell former FBI special agent former Special Assistant to FBI Director James Comey and the author author of the New Book Crossfire Hurricane Inside Donald Trump's war on the FBI Josh Welcome to skulduggery. Thanks so much for having me so oh a lot to cover in your book about you because it was amazing to me. I mean I've known you since you were in the Public Affairs Office of the FBI. I I did not realize after you graduated from there you were in the middle of everything at the FBI. During the two thousand sixteen election I'm from the Hilary Clinton Email Investigation to crossfire hurricane the investigation into Russian interference and ties to Donald Trump crossfire expire hurricane. We're the name come from so as has been reported and I say that because obviously as a former. FBI employ there's a lot even to this day you can't talk about as it relates to too sensitive matters but as it's been reported this came from the Rolling Stones Song Jumping Jack Flash.
"nadler" Discussed on Skullduggery
"It's hard to remember just a few short months ago. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler was distinctly unenthusiastic about the idea of impeaching president trump nope even after the damning evidence of obstruction of justice laid out in special counsel Robert Mueller's report but then something changed a a young former New York state economic development official named Lindsay Boylan announced. She was challenging Nadler in next year's Democratic primary accusing him of being far. Rt Tepid in going after the president suddenly Nadler started sounding more aggressive in his comments about trump until he finally announced just this this month a full-fledged impeachment inquiry by his committee. It's the latest example of that old adage. The end all politics is local and it may have turned boylan a political unknown into the most politically influential person in Washington. You've never heard of now some are saying she could be the next Alexandria Cossio Calcio Cortes. We'll talk to Lindsay Boylan about her long-shot challenge to Nadler Animal Interview Josh Campbell a former. FBI agent and Special Assistant Assistant to James Comey about his New Book Crossfire Hurricane on this episode of skulduggery because people have gotta know whether or not their president's across well. I'm not a crook. I told the American people I did not trade arms a hostile to my heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not I did not have sexual relations nations without one there will be no lies we will honor the American people with the Truth and nothing else. I'm Michael ISIKOFF chief investigative correspondent for Yahoo News and I'm Dan Kleinman editor in chief of Yahoo News News and a quick reminder that you can follow us at skulduggery pod and by the way if you've got any questions thoughts ideas you wanNA share tweet right out US US so poor Jerry Nadler he finally convenes the first impeachment hearing on the president and and has as his star witness Corey Lewandowski who just makes a mockery of the whole thing. This was their first fact winners right. This is the first opportunity run to really cross examine a witness and participant in any of these allegations involving trump and Russia and obstruction attraction and Lord knock over no he put the question is like answer a nothing beyond agreeing that what was in the Muller report was correct trek but he would not go beyond that one word. He kept citing the letter from the president's lawyers saying he can't talk about that. The Democrats grew frustrated and they were unable to advance the ball at all and I mean not only that but all you need to know is that Korla Hausky wanted to be there. You know there were two use. There were two chairs. He was flanked by two chairs. Ours left and right those was supposed to be the chairs wear rob porter and brick dearborn. We're going to be sitting they were also subpoenaed but they refused to at the orders of the White House refused testified to protect executive privilege privilege what confidentially whatever lunacy could have done the same thing but he wanted to be there because he may be running for a Senate New Hampshire and he thought that this would be in his interest. It would be an opportunity to throw uh-huh red meat out to the base and it tells you everything which is that this is entirely a political circus from their perspective and making gain points from it right now. The expert cross examination from the hired gun lawyer Barry Burke was it did establish published one thing that Corey Lewandowski lies on national television Gary Mason moment. Oh I thought actually thought he landed he and he got Corey Lewandowski to say you know yeah. I have no obligation to tell the truth to the media I well. I don't know what his mother taught him when he was growing up yeah you know we've got far cry from George Washington and the Cherry tree it unless I'm under oath. I can lie to you about anything. I don't know how many people were shocked by it but look the bottom line is it did not go all that well for the House Democrats but it raises larger questions about whether they can get traction at all when it comes to right impeachment yeah I think we're GonNa shed some light on how we got to this point with our first guest who may be more responsible than anybody to getting Nadler to move towards the process where we don't renounce. Don't tell me it has something to do with politics and well you. Can you judge for yourself. After after we listen to our guests we may be a little too cynical yeah all right. Let's get to it and we now have with us. Lindsay Boylan who is running for Congress Chris in New York City as a Democrat against Jerry Nadler the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Wednesday welcomed skulduggery. Sorry thank you so much for having me so my premise lindsay is that you have had more influence on events going on in Washington right now specifically the House Judiciary Committee impeachment inquiry into President Trump than almost anybody even though nobody knows who you are so we're in Washington but do you think I'm right. Yes I think you're right. I do think you're right. We have been instigating. I do think you're right but it's not nearly enough because you know I've called for impeachment and that's what we need to do and that's not where we okay well. Let's explain because Nadler was basically following the instruction Speaker Pelosi Pelosi and and for many many many months has not said that he was in favor of impeachment. He was very careful about right and then is making that very explicit in fact. I think we have a clip of Nadler speaking right after the Muller report. We WanNA play in which he's asked about impeachment. I don't WANNA making sound as if we're heading impeach probably okay that was may fifteenth now Lindsey. When did you get into the race calling for the impeachment of President Trump. Will I on twitter. I called for impeachment. Michael Cohen Second hearing so that was back in February but I entered heard the race in April so from the moment I was in the race I was for impeachment right and if that answers your and at that point did Nadler her was he aware of your entering the raise when Z. Hearing footsteps absolutely no absolutely I mean there was a New York Times article goal that floated my name. I think it was in late February as well and I had people on his team. You know I was aware that they were watching what I was doing and all of that from that that moment but it certainly got more pronounced once I once I announce them was out there right and you now and then you report that you had raised a quarter of a million dollars alerts which is a nice some for a primary opponent when was that that came out midge life July so it seems seems that Nadler became more and more receptive to impeachment after your candidacy seemed more serious absolutely there's no question it's been credited and several different publications and he started responding through a spokesperson to articles goals that that I would be quoted in with respect to impeachment and most recently daily beast had an article where he actually said this is you no this is just a tool for her to run on an essence so this is clearly peaked him. I wish it peaked him more and I wished in peaked him more earlier because we should be impeaching. Impeaching this are you. Are you running on impeachment. How does that to your candidacy. I'll say differently. I'm not running on impeachment. What I would say is we can accomplish very much in this country. If we have a president that has lost the public's trust and that's really what this is all about we. How can we have an honest broker. How can we have an honest relationship with the White House with the GOP. When we have someone who maligns the press calls them the enemy of the people all who obstructs justice continues to find ways to prevent the truth from coming out? It's all connected to me and frankly the fact that the democratic leadership sort of folds behind gamesmanship of what's going to happen with the presidential election rather than holding the president accountable is all part of the same problem for me. It's part of the reason why we haven't seen change in Washington. We haven't seen the necessary response to a changing economy inequality climate change. They're not separate in terms of issues. I think it's part of the sickness in Washington but the election is a little more than a year away. Impeachment still seems like a pretty high Bartik to get over for for Democrats. Wouldn't it be better just to let this election play out and have trump be removed from office by the American voter right well. I think he will be removed. You know by the American voter. I don't have some sense that the Senate votes would change from what we imagine them to be in the impeachment process would get through the Senate but I believe at a core level that we need to hold the president accountable. I'm a mom of a five have your old if I treated disciplining her the same way Washington and Democrats Leadership Democrats are thinking about this process says with impeachment that we only do it if we think we can we can win. We only do it if we think that's the best outcome. That's just not a way to proceed. It's not ethical. It's not the right thing to do and I certainly don't want to be on the record. You know I wouldn't want to be in any of the shoes of the leadership including Congressman Nadler and not pushing for this. It's the the right thing to do and instead of taking an action the president is more and more emboldened to disrespect the law disrespect. Frankly the American people I mean this is different than the things I just mentioned as an example but call telling for Congress woman of color to go back where they came from. I'm calling jewish-americans disloyal if they vote for Democrats having a closer relationship with Kim Jong Hoon than you have with some of your your own elected in your own country all of these things sort of would be unfathomable in any other context and I think we've made that easier. We've become immune to it because this president has become emboldened every day to do these kinds of things that in any other circumstance would be completely. You know we we keep keeps saying if Obama had done if a woman in this will not he would never have done any of these things all right so tell us a little bit about yourself how you got into this race what you did what your her qualifications for. Congress Person Sir so I then I started my career in New York and urban planning. I came to it after after graduating from college. I was really interested in post Hurricane Katrina this concept of rebuilding a city equitably of course. We know that's not what's happened in New Orleans but that's what I came to New York with Jane. Jacobs had just passed away and I was really interested in how you make. Cities Work started in that field went onto manage Bryant Park in a couple of other public spaces in the city Eddie. I went to business school at Columbia part time. Just after the financial crisis you don't leave a good job and then I went into municipal finance so how you fund infrastructure investments and then finally finally I worked for the steaks. I said I know how to make cities work. I know how to fund infrastructure for them. And now I want to go actually being government so ultimately I worked for the state and and governor for four years overseeing at the end as deputy secretary for Economic Development and housing all of the economic development jobs housing portfolio and then also also things like storm recovery and the states relief work in Puerto Rico and I've been a great sidekick to a bunch of powerful men my whole career and that has been a great learning experience. It's also partially fueled me as the mother of a daughter district. That's entirely represented at every level of government by a man in a progressive heart of our country to get into it. I saw these women across the country get out in the midterms and and they inspired me how much of an impact they could have simply by talking about their lived experience and the issues that matter to them and to me we've had let's say a decade or so talking about the renaissance of cities and local and state governments to really take over the role of the federal government..
"nadler" Discussed on The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell
"Now it's time for the last word with Lawrence O'Donnell good evening. Rachel and I have right here the Justice Department filing. It's the the there's a Justice Department filing tonight. It's the breaking the news. The night of them say just saying that house. Chairman of the Judiciary Committee Jerry Nadler has no right to see grand jury material material related to the Muller investigation and you know who has something to say about that Jerry Nadler. You know where he is right. Now over here reveal complied say hi on your way out the door. Thank you Rachel. Well host use your in committee chairman. Jerry Nadler is here to talk about the breaking news of the night with the trump justice department trying to block his subpoena for grand jury material from the Modern Investigation Chairman Nabire. We'll be our first guest tonight with his reaction to that new legal filing by the Justice Party also tonight. Donald Trump lost a big round in court today on the emoluments case against him which has now cleared legal hurdles to move forward and we'll take a look at last night's debate and show you why you can ignore all most everything in the policy details that the candidates argued about last night and cal Perry will join us with a new Musi investigation into the potential dangers of the practice this of flaring natural gas in Texas. We begin tonight with the breaking news. The trump justice department headed by the Trump Attorney General William Barr told a federal court in Washington tonight that the House Judiciary Committee should be denied any access to grand jury material from the mall investigation because because impeachment is not a judicial proceeding according to the Justice Department the Justice Department filing in court notes that grand jury material can be released in connection with a judicial proceeding the Justice Department then insists quote impeachment proceedings in Congress including hypothetical removal precedings in the Senate are not judicial proceedings under the plane and ordinary meaning of that term judicial proceedings are legal proceedings precedings governed by law the take place in judicial forum before a judge or magistrate proceedings that occur outside the judicial setting are not judicial. Sean proceedings even if they are called a trial and include some of the procedures familiar from a courtroom such as sworn testimony or lawyer lead Ed questioning of witnesses the committee for its part offers no explanation for how rule sixties reference to judicial proceedings authorizes access access to grand jury materials for congressional proceedings administered by members of Congress rather than legal proceedings overseen by judges yesterday yesterday the House Judiciary Committee on a party line vote voted for a resolution for investigative procedures offered by Chairman Jerrold Nadler that resolution solution describes in detail the invested procedures that committee will use in what it calls the committee's investigation to determine whether to recommend articles of impeachment with respect to President Donald J trump leading off our discussion tonight the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Congressman Jerry Nadler. He Represents New York's tenth congressional it Distracts Chairman Nadler the Justice Department seems to be making two cases here first of all that this is not a judicial proceeding in your committee Eddie therefore you don't have a right to this second even if it was a judicial proceeding interpreted that way you still don't don't have a right to it even if it went to trial even if it went to a Senate trial you don't have a right to any of this material of their their first of all saying that you aren't even having an impeachment investigation there isn't they insist. There is no impeachment investigation in the house. Well let me deal with that. Universal order we have been very clear for the last several months in in court filings in public statements and in proceedings in the committee that that we are in fact conduct an investigation preparing to decide whether to recommend articles of impeachment to now's now you can call that an impeachment investigation you call that impeaching inquiry. Those terms have legal meaning but that's exactly what we're doing. We're involved in investigation to determine whether to to recommend mend articles impeach into the House and we will determine that at the conclusion of this investigation and and now now I know the Republicans and here just department is simply acting as an arm of the Republican Party. They have argued that this cannot be real impeachment investigation because the house it didn't vote and authority to the community to do it most impeachments done since the reorganization act of Nineteen forty-six have begun in the beginning begun in the in the Judiciary Committee have not had house authorizations a at all the Nixon impeachment had a house weatherization six months after the investigation starting judiciary committee and that was done as was the Clinton House weatherization in order to give the committee the right to do certain kinds of subpoenas and depositions positions house rules have changed. We have that authority without a specific resolution the house so there's no question that we're doing that. We are in an official official. We're doing an investigation toward determining whether to recommend articles impeach the president. The second argument they make is that that doesn't qualify S. judicial proceeding and therefore we're not entitled to Grand Jury Information. I simply say this is another instance of the trump administration trying to cover up and hide from Congress and from the American people in this case from Congress because the American people wouldn't see the grand jury information all kinds of mission. They're they're they're opposing hosing the president said he would oppose he would defy all subpoenas which they have done that by the way was article three of the Nixon impeachment defying subpoenas the law says that a a upon request by the chairman of the ways and Means Committee the Department the IRS shall give tax returns for any individual they have declined to do so they've refused to do so they've said that they haven't shown inadequate purpose none of their business and so just to fight defying all the law and order to hide everything from Congress American people now. They're excuse here that this is not a judicial proceeding. There is judicial precedent for quality for for considering impeachment proceeding either judicial proceeding or preparatory judicial proceeding but I let the details of that go to the legal legal to the reply brief that will be filed this coming week well judge ceric in the Nixon case. ordered grand jury materials handed over to Oh you're committee. That's one of the precedents you're relying on. They say that president isn't relevant. I want to go to something else they use in here. They use a what in courtroom firms will be called extrajudicial comment meaning. They use statements that Speaker Pelosi has made talking to reporters are trying to explain the situation it to the American public and they use that in these filings to say to try to say that there isn't an official preceding going on they quote the speaker they say the speaker of the House has been fatty that the investigation is not a true impeachment proceeding on the same day. The House adopted the resolution that the committee claims authorized this suit. The speaker told a reporter the House Democratic Caucus was not even close to an impeachment inquiry that was back in June well. I has Democratic Caucus. It doesn't do an impeachment inquiry but second of all the speaker has been very supportive every step that we've taken in initiating this impeachment investigation every court filing every statement every every statement the official statement in the committee was okayed by her at the time the house counsel who prepares makes all the legal filings on behalf of the Judiciary Committee reports to the speaker not to the judiciary this year committee so she has been fully supportive of every of every statement we have made the investing initiation and continuation of of the steps that we're taking the investigation even the procedures that we that the committee voted which included in the preempt which included in the preamble whereas causes a history the of of how in investigation started and of the resolution passed by the House back in June. I think it was what the rising certain subpoenas and other things and and and the company report which says this is among other things in order to determine whether to recommend articles of impeachment to the House well that was done with the speakers approval and and direct involvement the Justice Department filing says that the Committee does not know oh whether it's going to have articles of impeachment or vote on articles impeach from the present the committee might uses public comments to support the committee might end up with Justice Center or the committee might not take action. Well then say say like war. You don't deserve any of this material. That's like saying that you shouldn't show evidence to the jury because the jury hasn't made up its mind at the beginning of the trial of course we haven't determined yet whether to recommend articles of impeachment. That's why we're having in this investigation to determine whether the evidence is sufficient and and important enough to justify the rather extraordinary step of of uh of voting articles of impeachment one can have one's personal opinions as to the quality of that evidence but you don't announce a conclusion at the beginning of the trial at the beginning of the debate any of the preceding yeah a judge ordered the grand jury material handed over to the committee before the Judiciary Committee decided that it was going to vote on and vote articles of impeachment and also the committee didn't necessarily know whether the vote on articles of impeachment would pass we'll of course in mm-hmm a proper investigation proper proceeding to determine whether to recommend artists impeachment weather by the Judiciary Committee in Nineteen seventy three and seventy four with respect and Nixon or for now you don't start off with a conclusion you may have personal opinions but you soda for the official conclusion you examine the evidence and you make a conclusion would you now. I think personally is very strong and a dozen different debatable offenses but that's my personal opinion at the moment we are going to have a very aggressive series of veering starting next Tuesday to bring out the witnesses and we're going to go well beyond the parameters of the Mullahs report is not just the question of collusion with Russians in the election and and the question of obstruction of justice which I think is very very clearly indicated in the report but the question of self dealing and self enrichment the American taxpayers monies going directly into the pocket of the president that apparently Saudi money is going directly into the pockets of the president because I I all of this indirect violation of the scores of the Constitution because of the very corrupt actions where you direct the Air Force to use the trump trump hotel or foreign foreign governments seeking influence the United States government have have have their delegations stay at at trump hotels house which he hasn't divested himself interest in and which means money directly into his pocket. We have to take a look at his failure to defend and I mean there's ample evidence is plenty of evidence that molly testified to this the senator coats for the head of the National Intelligence. We'll just that were under attack now. By the Russians in terms of the integrity of our election that we're expecting that they will try to intervene and others in our election next year and as the president done anything to carry out his oath to protect and defend the constitution to see that the laws against election are faithfully executed. I think not that's another grounds for for for for for impeachment. The fact that he has in fact defied all congressional subpoenas is an obstruction of the work of Congress. The the central purpose of impeachment is not to punish crimes the central purpose of impeachment as described by the framers the federalist papers and Cetera is to prevent vent the accoring indictment of power by the president to protect liberty to protect the separation of powers to prevent the president from the soothing power over the Congress in the judicial branch and his his complete subversion of the spy by refusing all information to Congress and even this brief could be read as part of that article three in the Nixon impeachment and Nixon didn't go so far as to say he would oppose all subpoenas which this president it has and has said he would do that so I think there are some very very serious reasons and some people say by the way. Why should we impeach the president? The Senate would never convict anyway. I think it's very important that this kind of conduct if you can prove it be called out that that the constitution must be vindicated and that president and the next president and what after him or her has to know you can't do this sort of thing you have to protect the the the institutions of.
"nadler" Discussed on WMAL 630AM
"America I'm Marc live in our number eight seven seven three eight one three eight one one eight seven seven three eight one three eight one one all right look want to talk about impeachment let's talk about impeachment number one Nadler is a slip and fall lawyer I'd be shocked if he actually has a legal license they're gonna going to court this committee and sue for the grand jury testimony and other grand jury information excuse me that the that was collected by Mister Muller during the course of his investigation anybody know what the problem with that is a committee of Congress can't sue a committee of Congress is not the house of representatives there's been no vote by the house of representatives I don't know is anybody else mention this Mister producer I've been busy all day doing other stuff research so Nadler is trying to conduct now an impeachment investigation to the Judiciary Committee without the full house of representatives authorizing him to do so number one and number two going to court on his own as the committee chairman to get information it is Nablus who's a rogue public official it is not alert whose undermining the constitution so this is outrageous that's number one that's number one number two we just saw thank the buckle with Robert Muller a complete the bottle but Nadler looks like a clown he looks like a buffoon so what does he do he says look look at all the great information we got from Mahler Muller who was quite feeble mother who barely knew where he once had read his report let alone read a written and so now they say well now we have real information so where we're gonna conduct sort of a preliminary impeachment investigation guess what you don't get to conduct a preliminary impeachment investigation absolutely lawlessness here and I think what the Democrats are doing it's so politically damaging to themselves they can figure it out they can figure it out now let's take a little time and do something that no other broadcast is going to do no member of Congress is going to do and that's actually look at this thing called impeachment let's actually look at it because I can assure you Jerrold Nadler is not Jerrold Nadler what have done very very well as a commissar in the Soviet Union he would have done very very well as a judge in the Soviet Union as a political apparatchiks in the Soviet Union Jerrold Nadler is a red you know what I mean by that he is a red he's doing more to damage this country our constitution our national security domestic policy by spending every waking hour of his pathetic life trying to burden obstruct undermine and destroy this president he's obsessed they talk about on hinged mentally ill well that would be Jerrold Nadler he needs some help but what from Pelosi she's no better so let's take a minute and look at this issue of impeachment we'll go back to Rollo burger one of the great minds constitutional mine she wasn't even a lawyer but I truly magnificent historian and I've cited this before but we're gonna get into a more deeply the books called impeachment the constitutional problems pressing for the impeachment of justice William O. Douglas congressman Ford it will be recalled asserted that an impeachable offense is whatever house and Senate jointly consider it to be is that what it is is over the constitution says their records make quite plain that the framers far from proposing to confer it'll limit of all power meaning unlimited power train teaching convict intended to confer a limited power why because they didn't want the president answerable to the house of representatives that's why before George Mason move to add Mao administration in a language of impeachment in the constitution to treason and bribery George Mason explain that treason as defined in the constitution will not reach many great and dangerous offenses attempts to subvert the constitution may not be treason it is the more necessary to extend the powers of impeachment so Mason proposed to extend the power of impeachment to reach call great and dangerous offenses attempts to subvert the constitution quote unquote by adding now administration but James Madison objective he stood up many said so very good term is malam integration we'll be equivalent to a tenure during the pleasure of the Senate and high crimes and misdemeanors was accepted in its place this is all the medicines about so high crimes and misdemeanors significantly higher standard than mala ministration and neither our standards as low as whatever the house of representatives decide since it's a political question that was never accepted so manifestly this substitution was made for the purpose of limiting not expanding the initial proposal by J. O. George Mason one Malla ministration now shortly before the constitutional convention had rejected hi misdemeanors that phrase a phrase that they pulled out of English common law they rejected it in another context because it had a technical meeting to limited so that adaption of high crimes and misdemeanors exhibits and intend to embrace the limited technical meeting of the words for purposes of impeachment that consequence would attach in any event for use of a technical term fully ascertain by the commoners civil law would require a reference to the law for its purpose precise meaning I know this gets a little complicated but we need to talk about this if high crimes and misdemeanors had an ascertainable content at the time the constitution was adopted that content furnishes the boundaries of the power the boundaries I'm the power it is no more open the Congress the stray beyond those boundaries there it is to include in the companion word bribery an offense such as robbery which had a quite different meaning back then and in common law the design of the framers to good for a limited power is confirmed by the rejection of removal by address removal by address had no limits we okay so far so the language is intended to be limited and limiting not brought even so some on easiness apparently was excited by the breadth of the power in other words even some were concerned that this provided but Khan was too much power with the president for there were repeated assurances that impeachment was meant only for quote great injuries on quote great misdemeanors on quote James Erindale later a Supreme Court justice told the North Carolina convention that the occasion for Texas size I'd is impeachment will arise from acts of great injury to the community impeachment said governor Johnston in that convention is a mode of trial pointed out for great misdemeanors against the public the peaks of the English practice the peaks of the English practice which is what the framers looked at we're familiar to the founders in the federal convention the constitutional convention George Mason said corruption would be impeachable what I'm Mara Segre that corruption and some few other offenses or to be impeachable Madison added that the protection against the negligence of perfidy of the chief magistrate were indispensable the president said Madison might pervert his administration into a scheme at perk elation or oppression he might betray stressful foreign power MRS added that he may be Brian to be traced trust in the Virginia ratification convention James Madison stated that if the president be connected in any suspicious manner with any person there be grounds to believe that he will shelter him he may be impeached he also stated that where the president to commit anything sort trash trucks it's it's a summit only a few states that is senators to consider a treaty at the exclusion of others we'll be in page for misbehavior and so they had numerous examples now moving around this is a rather complex and lengthy book but leave it to me to handle the scholarship in a comment on the report of the resolution for the impeachment of justice William O. Douglas introduced in the house of representatives April sixteenth nineteen seventy by congressman Gerald R. Ford Elton four states that one hundred and ten sponsors of the anti Douglas resolution are conservative Republicans and Dixiecrats this seems persuasive evidence in support of the hypothesis he wrote which virtually everyone watched him accepts that the undertaking seeks not simply to impeach William O. Douglas but to discredit the liberalism inherent in the domestic programs of democratic administration since the new deal did you hear that let's bring this up to modern day the reason they want to impeach trump is in part due to their hate for Donald Trump and his election but it is to stop his agenda his appointment of constitution was to the court his attempt to secure the border is building up in the United States military his support for law enforcement I know my other policy objectives the purpose of attempting to impeach or lead up to the impeachment of Donald Trump is not just about Donald Trump who they hate it is about his agenda that they hate it's about the fact that selection that they hate the point is that impeachment is not supposed to just be about politics and the political winds are the majority party in the house there's serious real limiting language in our constitution I know it's Friday I know I'm supposed to talk about what now congressman Ford all but conceded that his resolution was in retaliation for the Senate's rejection of to a president Nixon's nominees to the Supreme Court but that's not what impeachment is supposed to be about is it ladies and gentleman now I'm going to continue I'm gonna continue I know what substantive I know what Scully I know its history but I know you're the smartest audience of all audiences in America I think this is crucially important we're setting the foundation to prove at the Democrats in the house and the Mister Nadler in particular I rolled public officials who are violating the constitution who are violating the impeachment clause in the purpose of impeachment as they wave around the constitution and walked towards impeachment you cannot just impeach somebody for political purposes that language has meaning any committee chairman of a committee cannot break go to court and make claims for grand jury information because they possibly might pursue impeachment a single committee doesn't get to make that decision you wanna know why ladies and gentleman because it's the full house of representatives that are supposed to represent the people and the Congress on the whole that's supposed to represent the people not that clowns of miscreants and malcontents who make up the majority on the house Judiciary Committee I'll be right back then Washington's mall W. M. eight how long or Washington comes to talk do you wish that double chin would just disappear Hey it's Leri account and I got a news flash for you.
"nadler" Discussed on The 11th Hour with Brian Williams
"And that may not be the best answer for this constitutional crisis. There has been heated debate among Democrats over whether to move ahead with impeachment a sense. The MO the report was released. And now that debate has picked up even more attention following the White House's refusal to cooperate with congressional investigations as we mentioned earlier house speaker Nancy Pelosi said today that Trump's making the case that he is self impeachable. But she also said this. Impeachment is a very divisive very divisive. Of course of action to take. We shouldn't do it for passion or bias or has to be about the presentation affect and it has to be about patriotism, not about partisanship. And with us for more Pulitzer prize winning author and historian, Jon Meacham and Peter Baker is back with us. They are both co authors of the recent book impeachment in American history. Thanks to you for sticking around. Peter, Jon, welcome to you. And let me let me start with you. And we heard Jerry Nadler today alluding to the fact that in his view, there are other considerations potentially out there when it comes to the question of whether to move forward with impeachment. I think one might be what Nancy Pelosi was saying there about it being potentially divisive. Here's what Nadler said during the Clinton impeachment back in one thousand nine hundred his one of his arguments against it was he said, we must not do this without an overwhelming consensus of the American people. There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment. When impeachment is supported by one of our major political parties and opposed by the other such an impeachment will produce. Divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come and we'll call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions, John. I wonder do you think that is weighing on Jerry, Nadler and Democrats right now in shoot it. I think it is. And I suspect it should not. I would suggest that the to make an absolute statement like that. I think misreads what the founders intended with the impeachment of weapon, and it was to put a check on a president who was committing high crime, treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors. It wasn't about. Whether it was a popular course of action. It was one of the checks and balances that was to in fact institute the capacity of reason to combat passion. I would respectfully disagree with the speaker of the house and with congressman Nadler in saying that because something is partisan does not mean, it's not patriotic. There is a in theory. And I'm not being naive about this in theory. There is. Arguably a higher constitutional duty on the part of the legislative branch to check and balance the executive no matter whether or not it would be broadly popular in the public again. This sounds very high brow. And I'm not in congress, and I don't have to face the voters, and I understand all of that. But I think if I were in congress would I would be thinking right now is is our is would our failure..
"nadler" Discussed on NBC Meet the Press
"This Sunday after Muller, President Trump, no collusion. No, obstruction and his allies feeling the best day since he got elected claim total victory with the release of the model report. But the report paints an unflattering picture of the president and his campaign and lays out a pattern of obstruction prompting Mr. Trump to bash the report with a profanity and Democrats demand to see the whole document and the underlying evidence we will subpoena that entire report today by guests this morning, the chairman of the House Judiciary committee Jerrold Nadler and the president's lawyer Rudy Giuliani plus the impeachment debate. Some Democrats argue the time is now. This is politics. This is about principle, and that's why I've asked all the house to start impeachment proceedings Donald scrap while others worry that the issue divides, Democrats and unites Republicans avenues not impeachment. The avenue is further disclosure to the American people and look who's running Joe Biden ahead in the polls is launching his campaign this week but previous front runners often failed to win their party's nomination. How much does pulling mean at this early stage of the race? Joining me for insight and analysis are NBC news chief White House correspondent Halley Jackson. Joshua Johnson host of one on NPR. Amy. Walter national editor of the cook political report and Jona Goldberg senior editor of national review. Welcome to Sunday. It's meet the press. From NBC news, Washington, the longest running show in television history. This is the press with Chuck Todd. Good Sunday morning. We're going to get to the mall report in a moment. But there was a terrible series of terror attacks and Sri Lanka on this Easter morning. The coordinated attacks across the country, targeted Christian worshippers, celebrating Easter and churches and high end hotels that are frequented by foreign tourists. The death toll is going to number into the hundreds the attacks broke a long period of peace in Sri Lanka, which has endured decades of civil war which had come to an end or supposed- turning now to the mullahs report in so many ways the rollout reflected the divisions in this country. It was a tale of two reports or more accurately to tales of.
"nadler" Discussed on Anderson Cooper 360
"So as not to reveal sources and methods of intelligence, or for some other legitimate reason. But that's a decision for the committee to make not for the attorney general or the administration. Yes. Muller? Anyone else? Well, we'll have to take the time over the next couple of days to carefully read the redacted report. So that we so that we don't find out that. In fact, there's very little left out. But on the assumption that it's heavily redacted. We will most certainly issue the subpoenas in very short order very much everybody. I'll answer that we probably I assume we'll probably find it useful tasks Muller to testify. I assume we may ask members of of of his team to testify, but we'll have to make those decisions after reading what we get as as inadequate as that may be. Thank you. Thank you. Congressman Jerrold Nadler, the chairman of the House Judiciary committee laying out his problems with what has transpired since Robert Muller's team finished their report. And the problem is he has with the way it's being rolled out. A tomorrow any turning general of essentially cooking the process to favor the president back now with team. Mike Shell's raised the notion will it ever be enough for Democrats, even if they get less redacted version, the leadership get a less redacted version Democrats who want the original underlying documents for the investigation. I don't think there's anything wrong with them wanting to have this underlying documents and trying to get them. But I do think that sort of talking point of Democrats will never be happy. It's not I don't I don't really think is that accurate because the Democrats are asking for something pretty basic, which is to just get the report ahead of time. I have time to read it and for it to be unredacted at least for a certain number of people who can be trusted with it. That's a pretty reasonable thing to do. And I'll just go back to when you want people to understand what you're talking about you and Bargo it that is you can take any PR person off the street and ask them how you do that. And they will tell you that you give people time to read it process. It ask him form questions. You don't come out and start talking about something that people don't have time to think about you don't. And if you really want accountability, you share it with the people who are supposed to be helping hold the White House accountable congress. I think it's just basic what I don't understand is. If the president has said this report fully exonerates him. He's been completely exonerated Kalou. On collusion. Completely exonerated on searching. If in fact that is the case, and he really believes that although we know some of a little bit at one line of or not even a complete line of what Muller said that doesn't seem to support the notion of exoneration on on on on obstruction of Justice isn't the attorney general acting as if there is something to hide I mean, if you or the general and this exonerates the president and the president says, you know. You know, nothing to hide here. No problem here. Why would you go about this from pretty much every step of the way? The attorney general has essentially he writes us a four star. He writes, a four-pack just review he writes, a four page summary that is clearly favorable to the president could have quoted in the Muller report more, but he chose to write this four-page summer the way he did there's complaints from the mother team about some of the emphasis, he put on it kind of the the twist he gave to it then takes weeks while the president is out there speaking about how this is completely exonerated the White House. Clearly has a message on this. Three weeks go by and now he wants to give a press conference before it's even released..
"nadler" Discussed on Anderson Cooper 360
"Now just hours away from getting spun on the mole report. Good evening from Washington where some key signs tonight or pointing to perhaps a troubling answer. And in a moment, we're expecting to hear from a leading critic who does not like what he is seeing so far democratic congressman and House Judiciary committee, chairman Jerrold Nadler, he is expected to hold a live press conference unhappy about what your general has decided to do holding his own press conference tomorrow around nine thirty A M. We'll bring you a congressman Nadler's remarks as they happen. He he'll be speaking out raising concerns about exactly what will happen tomorrow morning nine thirty AM eastern time, you Torney general scheduled to go before cameras give some sort of an overview of the Muller report, and then take questions, but of course, given that the report will not have been released by then is not sure how not clear how informed those questions can actually be President Trump says he might also hold a press conference a short time later. Well, it wasn't mentioned though is. Something that CNN quickly learned as I just said there won't even be out until hours after the bar press conference. Meaning no one will have seen it when bar takes questions on it. Meaning he can say anything he wants the contents known can challenge him with facts, just as it was when he released his four-page summary of it, which is you know, it was higher. I leave favorable to the president. So for a period of time tomorrow in this case hours, not weeks, the internal general the attorney general's take on Robert Muller's report will be the only take and we'll all be hitting with congress out of town as for the special counsel himself, perhaps the best person available to characterize his own findings and decisions he won't be in the room. His spokesman would not say why. But his absence certainly raises questions is does late reporting the New York Times by CNN political analyst, Maggie Haberman and others. That Justice department officials have spoken with White House lawyers about the report providing information, potentially helpful in crafting a rebuttal to it. An essence the people charged with administrating Justice for all Americans helping out lawyers charged with defending the. Resident so there's planning to investigate tonight. And as I said, we're gonna bring you that press conference from from democratic side from Jerrold Nadler as soon as it happens this evening, let's start with C N N's Jim Acosta at the White House right now, Jim just walk us through. How all of this is playing out. Well Anderson we heard from the president earlier today saying in that interview with a local radio station here in Washington that there are going to be some very strong things coming from the attorney general William bar that that gave everybody some indication like, okay, wait a minute. What's happening here? How is it that the president knows or has some idea as to what the attorney general is going to say keep in mind Anderson for the last couple of weeks when we pressed White House officials whether or not there have been conversations between the Justice department and the White House. They basically said we cannot answer that question. Now, I will tell you Anderson just talked to a senior White House official in the last thirty minutes who said that you know, that this person had been around the president earlier this evening in the words of this official. He is not fuming. He is not worried, and according to this official these attacks that we're starting to see from some Democrats on the attorney general will quote backfire. And so they are feeling confident over here at the White House at least that's the that's the face. They're putting on this evening Anderson. They're confident in terms of what the attorney general is going to release tomorrow in terms of this were dactyl Muller report..
"nadler" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast
"Legal representation, front, congressional committees off and on since. And this is to intimidate current and future. People don't stick your neck out. Jaren ask a question. You know they the Goodlatte and Representative Goodlatte and Nunez have talked about bringing you in to testify about, I assume the election and I'm not sure what else do you think they will and if so, how? What do you think the calculation is? And why? Why? Since January twentieth of twenty seventeen. I have gobs the hill to testify publicly or in close session or be interviewed over a half dozen times. And every time they've asked me, I have said yes because I want to do what I can to inform into let people know what I did, what I believe, what I think we need to do as a country. And so I know that chairman Goodlatte has said something that he's going to call me in or subpoena, whatever else they have to subpoena Neil asked me to come up. I will talk to you. Was I perfect. Public servant was perfect, but I did try my best. I tried to be honest with them. And so now being, you know, pointed to was one of those villains that congressman Nadler and should, which is really quite interesting because when I was any bomb station, the were far far more Democrats calling for my resignation or my firing than the Republicans. Now I'm evil incarnate, whatever because I'm not a Republican democrat, I tried to call a straight, but if I'm not playing by the rules that they set up, so I'm ready to testify in front of any of the committees I have already. I think it's critically important that we get to the bottom of what happened. Both the standpoint of how to better protect our infrastructure is Congressman Lewis thing, but also understand whether or not anybody was cooperating with any foreign entities to try to subvert the integrity of election. It's critically important Bob Muller is doing. We. We need to be able to see it come to completion. And if he decides that nobody violated any laws or whatever, we need to accept that. But if he goes forward with the digital indictments the already has, I think we need to put our trust and confidence that this is why we have a department of Justice. This is why we have the the rule of law is country so that we can address these issues and promises. They come up the Miller investigation. What is the consequences? Should he find that there was some kind of dare I say collusion in in the election Rome. We've already found there was clearly collusion in the election just the fact. Publicly-owned fats. Just the fact that Donald Trump junior and Manafort campaign manager. Some others go to a meeting with people representing themselves as representatives of the Russian government and say, we will give you information information. Hillary Clinton as part of the Russian government's attempt to help Trump in the election, which was the Email sending the meetings said that, and they go to the meeting for that to receive that information. And Trump replied, Trump junior replies, that's what it is. I loved that by itself is probably a criminal conspiracy, just those facts alone, even if it were weren't followed up, but. I specked is likely that they will find that there was remember we're not looking for collusion is looking for violations of law violation of low would be criminal conspiracy conspiracy for the United States or maybe tied campaign contributions varies different things. They have already indicted quite a few people. Indicted the two dozen Russians, Russian nationals in three Russian companies for involving our election to help Trump. They end to showcase us. They've indicted the presence campaign manager and unrelated charges. The presence lawyer and quote, unquote fixers. Interesting. We have someone known as a fixer in your employees. Has has allegedly told people that he was present when the president was informed of what happened in that meeting..
"nadler" Discussed on The Beat with Ari Melber
"I am joined by the top democrat at that hearing from the judiciary committee jerry nadler's the ranking member and has stepped out to speak with me i'll let me catch you up on what's going on the hearing intense on the star democratic staffers hoisted pictures you can see there to to bring the thing to opening there's basically photos as you can tell people who pled guilty in this case that led democrats to say this is no witch on meanwhile peter struck has been breaking his silence and he's defending not only himself we're going to show you here today his defense of the muller pro he was once a part of this investigation is not politically motivated after it is not a witch hunt it is not a hoax that was his statement but republicans fired up because they argued that strokes poor judgment it does indeed cast the entire probe in doubt kill you wrote it my point sir did you did you write that right where you wanted to direct your testimony is bob muller did not kick you off because of the content of your text he kicked you all because of some of the parents that he was worried about it is not my understanding that he kicked me off because of any bias that it was done based on the appearance if you want to represent what she said acura lamb happy to answer that question but i don't appreciate what was originally said being changed i don't give a damn what you preciado agent struck now those messages in question is struck privately texting with an f b i lawyer and they were both critical of trump they were engaged as well in a relationship now they called trump an idiot and a disaster and said and this has been can become a matter of some debate but they said they would quote stop trump from becoming president it was in response to a series of events that included then candidate trump in salting the immigrant family of a fallen war hero and my presumption based on that horrible disgusting behavior that the american population would not elect somebody demonstrating that behavior to be president of the united states it was in no way unequivocally any suggestion that me the fbi would take any action whatsoever to improperly impact the electoral process for any candidate and things got quite fiery this morning congressman nadler going on the attack and telling the republican chairman he was badgering this fbi agent are you objecting to the question if so please state your objections to chairman i object the gentleman it does not have standings there is no water no point of order here we have a problem with this policy we should take it up with the fbi not badger mr struck the gentleman's point of order is not well taken it's right on point no it's not and colin jail now they're taking a break from the hearing to join us live tonight a what are we learning today and is this hearing useful well this hearing is just a big show by the republicans to help the president as the wolves close in on as the wolves of investigation close in on him and they're trying to use the text messages of the private political opinions of mr struck to try to discredit the integrity and the and the credibility investigation and they're asking him now remember he was removed from the investigation very early on as soon as muller learned about about his text messages and he hasn't been part of it but they're trying they're insisting on asking him as they did insist on asking deputy general rosenstein questions they know he can't answer questions about an ongoing investigation an ongoing criminal investigation which the fbi lawyer instructs him not to answer and if he doesn't answer then they threatened to hold him in contempt and if he does answer then that will that will hurt the integrity of the of the investigation it may help give information directly to the president's defense team is really giuliani's already suggested but the point is the investigation trying to use to discredit the investigation to poison the jury pool the american people against whatever the investigation comes up within the point of the investigation is well though the president's calling it a witch hunt in the republicans in congress are doing everything they can to discredit it known as defending because all we really know about the investigation is that.