Follow US:

Practice English Speaking&Listening with: House Judiciary Committee Work To Get Robert Mueller Testimony | The Last Word | MSNBC

(0)
Difficulty: 0

HE WAS A COMMITTEE STAFF LAWYER WHICH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS

WHICH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS NOW PRETENDING IS UNPRECEDENTED.

NOW PRETENDING IS UNPRECEDENTED. THE NEWS DAY BEGAN WITH THE

THE NEWS DAY BEGAN WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL REFUSING TO

ATTORNEY GENERAL REFUSING TO SHOW UP TO TESTIFY TO THE HOUSE

SHOW UP TO TESTIFY TO THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. ITS NOT JUST THE ATTORNEY

ITS NOT JUST THE ATTORNEY GENERAL NOW WHO IS REFUSING TO

GENERAL NOW WHO IS REFUSING TO TESTIFY TO THE HOUSE JUDICIARY

TESTIFY TO THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

COMMITTEE.

NOW PRESIDENT TRUMP TONIGHT IS

NOW PRESIDENT TRUMP TONIGHT IS

SAYING HE WONT ALLOW ANYONE WHO

SAYING HE WONT ALLOW ANYONE WHO

HAS WORKED IN HIS ADMINISTRATION

HAS WORKED IN HIS ADMINISTRATION

TO TESTIFY.

TO TESTIFY.

EVEN IF THEYRE NO LONGER WORKING IN HIS ADMINISTRATION.

WORKING IN HIS ADMINISTRATION. THAT MIGHT INCLUDE ROBERT

THAT MIGHT INCLUDE ROBERT MUELLER.

MUELLER.

NBC NEWS IS REPORTING TONIGHT

NBC NEWS IS REPORTING TONIGHT

THAT THE HOUSE JUDICIARY

THAT THE HOUSE JUDICIARY

COMMITTEE HAS NOW BEGUN DISCUSSIONS DIRECTORY WITH

DISCUSSIONS DIRECTORY WITH ROBERT MUELLERS TEAM ABOUT

ROBERT MUELLERS TEAM ABOUT COMING TO TESTIFY TO THE

COMING TO TESTIFY TO THE COMMITTEE BUT NOTHING HAS BEEN

COMMITTEE BUT NOTHING HAS BEEN FINALIZED AT THIS POINT AND NO

FINALIZED AT THIS POINT AND NO DATE HAS BEEN SET.

DATE HAS BEEN SET. THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HAS BEEN

THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HAS BEEN SEEKING ROBERT MUELLERS

SEEKING ROBERT MUELLERS

TESTIMONY THROUGH THE NORMAL

TESTIMONY THROUGH THE NORMAL

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT PROCESS WHICH

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT PROCESS WHICH

REQUIRES THE PERMISSION OF THE

REQUIRES THE PERMISSION OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL BUT THAT

ATTORNEY GENERAL BUT THAT

PERMISSION MIGHT NEVER COME NOW. THE PRESIDENT TOLD FOX NEWS NOW.

THE PRESIDENT TOLD FOX NEWS TONIGHT THAT HE WILL TRY TO

TONIGHT THAT HE WILL TRY TO BLOCK FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL

BLOCK FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL DON McGAHNS TESTIMONY TO THE

DON McGAHNS TESTIMONY TO THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. THE PRESIDENT SAID I DONT THINK

THE PRESIDENT SAID I DONT THINK I CAN LET HIM, ESPECIALLY HIM

I CAN LET HIM, ESPECIALLY HIM BECAUSE HE WAS A COUNSEL.

BECAUSE HE WAS A COUNSEL. THE PRESIDENT FALSELY CLAIMED

THE PRESIDENT FALSELY CLAIMED THAT HE HAS GIVEN INVESTIGATORS

THAT HE HAS GIVEN INVESTIGATORS

TOTAL TRANSPARENCY AND THEN HE SAID "ITS DONE."CY AND THEN HE

SAID "ITS DONE." >> SO IS IT DONE?

>> SO IS IT DONE? >> I WOULD SAY ITS DONE.

>> I WOULD SAY ITS DONE. WEVE BEEN THROUGH THIS.

WEVE BEEN THROUGH THIS.

MOBE HAS EVER DONE WHAT IVE DONE.HAS EVER DONE WHAT IVE

DONE.

IVE GIVEN TOTAL TRANSPARENCY. ITS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE LIKE

ITS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE LIKE THIS.

THIS.

>> CONGRESS SHOULD BE.

>> CONGRESS SHOULD BE.

>> THEY SHOULDNT BE LOOKING ANYMORE.SHOULDNT BE LOOKING

ANYMORE.

THIS IS ALL -- ITS DONE.

THIS IS ALL -- ITS DONE.

>> THE ATTORNEY GENERAL REFUSED

>> THE ATTORNEY GENERAL REFUSED

TO TESTIFY TO THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TODAY

JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TODAY BECAUSE OF WHAT HE CALLED

BECAUSE OF WHAT HE CALLED "CHAIRMAN NADLERS INSISTENCE ON

"CHAIRMAN NADLERS INSISTENCE ON

HAVING STAFF QUESTION THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.TION THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CALLED THAT

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CALLED THAT

UNPRECEDENTED.

UNPRECEDENTED.

AS I SAID LATER IN THIS HOUR,

AS I SAID LATER IN THIS HOUR,

WELL SHOW YOU A VIDEO HISTORY OF COMMITTEE STAFF ASKINGTORY

OF COMMITTEE STAFF ASKING QUESTIONS IN HEARINGS INCLUDING

QUESTIONS IN HEARINGS INCLUDING PRESIDENT TRUMPS FAVORITE

PRESIDENT TRUMPS FAVORITE LAWYER ROY COHN WHO ACTUALLY

LAWYER ROY COHN WHO ACTUALLY

BECAME A FAMOUS LAWYER WHO

BECAME A FAMOUS LAWYER WHO

DONALD TRUMP WANTED TO HIRE BECAUSE ROY COHN WAS ALLOWED TO

BECAUSE ROY COHN WAS ALLOWED TO ASK QUESTIONS IN HIGH PROFILE

ASK QUESTIONS IN HIGH PROFILE HEARINGS AS A STAFF ATTORNEY.

HEARINGS AS A STAFF ATTORNEY.

THERE WERE MORE CALLS FOR ATTORNEY GENERALS RESIGNATION

ATTORNEY GENERALS RESIGNATION TODAY AND OUR FIRST GUEST

TODAY AND OUR FIRST GUEST TONIGHT, CONGRESSMAN ERIC

TONIGHT, CONGRESSMAN ERIC

SWALWELL HAS CALLED FOR HIS

SWALWELL HAS CALLED FOR HIS

IMPEACHMENT.

IMPEACHMENT.

HE IS NOT THE FIRST MEMBER OF

HE IS NOT THE FIRST MEMBER OF

THE HOUSE TO CALL FOR THE

THE HOUSE TO CALL FOR THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR TO BE

ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR TO BE

IMPEACHED.

IMPEACHED.

IT THE HOUSE BANKING CHAIRMAN,

IT THE HOUSE BANKING CHAIRMAN,

HENRY GONZALES, CALLED FOR THE

HENRY GONZALES, CALLED FOR THE

IMPEACHMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

IMPEACHMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

WILLIAM BARR 27 YEARS AGO.

WILLIAM BARR 27 YEARS AGO.

AND WILLIAM BARRS FIRST TOUR OF

AND WILLIAM BARRS FIRST TOUR OF

DUTY AS ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR

DUTY AS ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR

REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT GEORGE H.W. BUSH.LICAN PRESIDENT GEORGE H.W.

BUSH.

WILLIAM BARR HAS BEEN THROUGH ALL OF THIS BEFORE ACCUSATIONS

ALL OF THIS BEFORE ACCUSATIONS OF DISHONESTY, ACCUSATIONS OF

OF DISHONESTY, ACCUSATIONS OF

BEING PART OF A COVER-UP, CALLS FOR HIS IMPEACHMENT.R-UP, CALLS

FOR HIS IMPEACHMENT.

THE PEOPLE WHO USHLED I HAVE

THE PEOPLE WHO USHLED I HAVE

TRUMP TO CHOOSE BARR KNEW WOULD

TRUMP TO CHOOSE BARR KNEW WOULD

KNOW HOW TO HANDLE IT ONCE

KNOW HOW TO HANDLE IT ONCE

AGAIN.

AGAIN.

DEMOCRATS CONTROLLED THE HOUSE

DEMOCRATS CONTROLLED THE HOUSE

AND SENATE IN 1992 AND WERE

AND SENATE IN 1992 AND WERE

OUTRAGED AS BARRS HANDLING

OUTRAGED AS BARRS HANDLING

AFTER INVESTIGATION OF THE

AFTER INVESTIGATION OF THE

ADMINISTRATION WHICH INCLUDED AN INVESTIGATION OF THE CONDUCT OFN

INVESTIGATION OF THE CONDUCT OF THE FBI AND THE JUSTICE

THE FBI AND THE JUSTICE

DEPARTMENT.

DEPARTMENT.

SO WILLIAM BARR WAS ACTUALLY SUPERVISING THEN AN ACTUALLY

SUPERVISING THEN AN INVESTIGATION OF HIMSELF.

INVESTIGATION OF HIMSELF.

AS I REPORTED ON THIS PROGRAM RECENTLY, "NEW YORK TIMES"RAM

RECENTLY, "NEW YORK TIMES" COLUMNIST WILLIAM SAPPHIRE ON

COLUMNIST WILLIAM SAPPHIRE ON

OCTOBER 19th, 1992, CALLED

OCTOBER 19th, 1992, CALLED

ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR THE COVER-UP GENERAL BECAUSE OF

THE COVER-UP GENERAL BECAUSE OF THE WAY HE HANDLED THAT

THE WAY HE HANDLED THAT

INVESTIGATION.

INVESTIGATION.

WILLIAM SAPPHIRE WAS A CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN

CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN COLUMNIST IN THE "NEW YORK

COLUMNIST IN THE "NEW YORK

TIMES" IN THOSE DAYS.

TIMES" IN THOSE DAYS.

HE HAD WORKED AS A SPEECHWRITER

HE HAD WORKED AS A SPEECHWRITER

FOR RICHARD NIXON. EVEN WILLIAM SAPPHIRE WAS

EVEN WILLIAM SAPPHIRE WAS ASTONISHED BY BARRS CONDUCT AS

ASTONISHED BY BARRS CONDUCT AS

ATTORNEY GENERAL. BUT IF BILL SAPPHIRE WAS STILL

BUT IF BILL SAPPHIRE WAS STILL WITH US TONIGHT, ED NOT BE

WITH US TONIGHT, ED NOT BE SURPRISED TO HEAR WHAT THE

SURPRISED TO HEAR WHAT THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE SAID TODAY

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE SAID TODAY ABOUT ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM

ABOUT ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM

BARR. >> ITS DEADLY SERIOUS ABOUT IT.

>> ITS DEADLY SERIOUS ABOUT IT. AS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

AS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WAS NOT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WAS NOT

TELLING THE TRUTH TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES. THATS A CRIME.

THATS A CRIME.

>> REMARKABLY AFTER THE SPEAKER

>> REMARKABLY AFTER THE SPEAKER

OF THE HOUSE SAID THATS A

OF THE HOUSE SAID THATS A

CRIME, THE NEXT REPORTERS

CRIME, THE NEXT REPORTERS

QUESTION CHANGED CAN THE SUBJECT BUT MSNBCS KASIE HUNT KNEW AJECT

BUT MSNBCS KASIE HUNT KNEW A HISTORY-MAKING COMMENT BY A

HISTORY-MAKING COMMENT BY A

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE WHEN SHE HEARD ONE AND TWO MINUTES LATER

HEARD ONE AND TWO MINUTES LATER KASIE HUNT WENT BACK TO THE

KASIE HUNT WENT BACK TO THE

CRIME.

CRIME.

>> MADAM SPEAKER, DID THE

>> MADAM SPEAKER, DID THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL COMMIT A CRIME?

ATTORNEY GENERAL COMMIT A CRIME?

>> ELIED TO CONGRESS.

>> ELIED TO CONGRESS.

ELIED TO CONGRESS.

ELIED TO CONGRESS.

AND ANYBODY ELSE DID THAT, IT

AND ANYBODY ELSE DID THAT, IT

WOULD BE CONSIDERED A CRIME.

WOULD BE CONSIDERED A CRIME.

NOBODY IS ABOVE THE LAW, NOT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,E

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND NOT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

AND NOT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. BEING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DOES

BEING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DOES NOT GIVE YOU A BATH TO GO SAY

NOT GIVE YOU A BATH TO GO SAY WHATEVER YOU WANT.

WHATEVER YOU WANT. AND IT IS THE THAT BECAUSE YOU

AND IT IS THE THAT BECAUSE YOU

ARE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

ARE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

>> SHOULD HE GO TO JAIL FOR IT. >> THERES A PROCESS INVOLVEDIT.

>> THERES A PROCESS INVOLVED HERE, AND AS I SAID, ILL SAY IT

HERE, AND AS I SAID, ILL SAY IT

AGAIN, AND THE COMMITTEE WILL

AGAIN, AND THE COMMITTEE WILL

ACT UPON HOW WE WILL PROCEED.

ACT UPON HOW WE WILL PROCEED.

>> POLITICO REPORTED TODAY IN A

>> POLITICO REPORTED TODAY IN A

CLOSED-DOOR SESSION WITH THE

CLOSED-DOOR SESSION WITH THE

DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE

DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE

OF REPRESENTATIVES THIS MORNING,

OF REPRESENTATIVES THIS MORNING,

SPEAKER PELOSI TOLD FLORIDA

SPEAKER PELOSI TOLD FLORIDA

CONGRESSMAN CHARLIE CRIST WE SAW

CONGRESSMAN CHARLIE CRIST WE SAW

BARR COMMIT A CRIME WHEN HE

BARR COMMIT A CRIME WHEN HE

ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION.

ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION.

HERE IS THE MOMENT THE SPEAKER

HERE IS THE MOMENT THE SPEAKER

WAS TALKING ABOUT.

WAS TALKING ABOUT.

>> REPORTS HAVE EMERGED

>> REPORTS HAVE EMERGED

RECENTLY, GENERAL, THAT MEMBERS OF THE SPECIAL COUNSELS TEAMERS

OF THE SPECIAL COUNSELS TEAM ARE FRUSTRATED AT SOME LEVEL

ARE FRUSTRATED AT SOME LEVEL

WITH THE LIMITED INFORMATION

WITH THE LIMITED INFORMATION

INCLUDED IN YOUR MARCH 24th

INCLUDED IN YOUR MARCH 24th

LETTER THAT IT DOES NOT ADEQUATELY OR ACCURATELY

ADEQUATELY OR ACCURATELY NECESSARILY PORTRAY THE REPORTS

NECESSARILY PORTRAY THE REPORTS FINDINGS.

FINDINGS.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THEYRE

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THEYRE

REFERENCING WITH THAT?

REFERENCING WITH THAT?

>> NO, I DONT.

>> NO, I DONT.

>> NO ONE KNEW IT THEN BUT WE NOW KNOW THAT WILLIAM BARR WAS

NOW KNOW THAT WILLIAM BARR WAS IN POSSESSION OF A LETTER OF

IN POSSESSION OF A LETTER OF COMPLAINT SIGNED BY SPECIAL

COMPLAINT SIGNED BY SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT MUELLER AND

COUNSEL ROBERT MUELLER AND

ACCORDING TO WILLIAM BARRS

ACCORDING TO WILLIAM BARRS

GUESSING YESTERDAY IN THE SENATE

GUESSING YESTERDAY IN THE SENATE

JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, THAT LETTER

JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, THAT LETTER

WAS WRITTEN BY THE SPECIAL COUNSELS TEAM. THE SPECIAL

COUNSELS TEAM. >> YOU KNOW, THE LETTERS A BIT

>> YOU KNOW, THE LETTERS A BIT

SNITTY AND I THINK IT WAS PROBABLY WRITTEN BY ONE OF HIS

PROBABLY WRITTEN BY ONE OF HIS STAFF PEOPLE.

STAFF PEOPLE.

>> THAT WAS A MAJOR BLUNDER IN HIS UNDER OATH TESTIMONYDER IN

HIS UNDER OATH TESTIMONY YESTERDAY.

YESTERDAY.

BECAUSE WILLIAM BARR HAS BEEN

BECAUSE WILLIAM BARR HAS BEEN

CLAIMING THAT BECAUSE CONGRESSMAN CRIST USED THE

CONGRESSMAN CRIST USED THE PHRASE THE SPECIAL COUNSELS

PHRASE THE SPECIAL COUNSELS

TEAM, THAT DIDNT MEAN THE SPECIAL COUNSEL HIMSELF.E

SPECIAL COUNSEL HIMSELF. AND SO HE DID NOT HAVE TO REVEAL

AND SO HE DID NOT HAVE TO REVEAL

THEN THAT HE WAS IN POSITION OF

THEN THAT HE WAS IN POSITION OF

POSSESSION IVE LETTER OF

POSSESSION IVE LETTER OF

COMPLAINT FROM THE SPECIAL

COMPLAINT FROM THE SPECIAL

COUNSELS TEAM AS HE PUT IT.

COUNSELS TEAM AS HE PUT IT.

BUT YOU JUST HEARD THE ATTORNEY

BUT YOU JUST HEARD THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL SAY THAT HE BELIEVED THAT THAT LETTER WANE EVENED

THAT THAT LETTER WANE EVEN WRITTEN BY ROBERT MUELLER, JUST

WRITTEN BY ROBERT MUELLER, JUST

SIGNED BY ROBERT MUELLER WHICH MEANS IT WAS THE PRODUCT IN THE

MEANS IT WAS THE PRODUCT IN THE ATTORNEY GENERALS MIND AT THAT

ATTORNEY GENERALS MIND AT THAT

TIME OF THE SPECIAL COUNSELS

TIME OF THE SPECIAL COUNSELS

TEAM.

TEAM.

THE WHITE HOUSE RELEASED A

THE WHITE HOUSE RELEASED A

LETTER TO WILLIAM BRARL FROM A

LETTER TO WILLIAM BRARL FROM A

WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL WHO IS DESIGNATED TO DEFEND THEIS

DESIGNATED TO DEFEND THE PRESIDENT IN INVESTIGATIONS.

PRESIDENT IN INVESTIGATIONS. THE LETTER WAS WRITTEN THE DAY

THE LETTER WAS WRITTEN THE DAY AFTER THE REDACTED MUELLER

AFTER THE REDACTED MUELLER REPORT WAS PUBLICLY RELEASED AND

REPORT WAS PUBLICLY RELEASED AND

AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE LETTER STRESSES THAT ALTHOUGH THETTER

STRESSES THAT ALTHOUGH THE PRESIDENT WAIVED EXECUTIVE

PRESIDENT WAIVED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AND ALLOWED WHITE

PRIVILEGE AND ALLOWED WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL DON McCUBAN AND

HOUSE COUNSEL DON McCUBAN AND

OTHER MEMBERS OF HIS ADMINISTRATION TO VOLUNTARILY

ADMINISTRATION TO VOLUNTARILY TESTIFY TO THE SPECIAL COUNSEL,

TESTIFY TO THE SPECIAL COUNSEL,

THAT WAIVER OF EXECUTIVE

THAT WAIVER OF EXECUTIVE

PRIVILEGE DOES NOT EXTEND TO ANY

PRIVILEGE DOES NOT EXTEND TO ANY

OTHER INVESTIGATION.

OTHER INVESTIGATION.

THE PRESIDENTS LAWYERS LETTER SAYS HIS DECISION NOT TO THER

SAYS HIS DECISION NOT TO THE ASSERT PRIVILEGE IS NOT A WAIVER

ASSERT PRIVILEGE IS NOT A WAIVER OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE FOR ANY

OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE FOR ANY

OTHER MATERIAL OR FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE.TERIAL OR FOR ANY OTHER

PURPOSE.

HIS DECISION TO PERMIT

HIS DECISION TO PERMIT

DISCLOSURE OF EXECUTIVE PORTIONS OF THE REPORT DOES NOT WAVE ANYS

OF THE REPORT DOES NOT WAVE ANY PROTECTIONS FOR THE SPECIAL

PROTECTIONS FOR THE SPECIAL COUNSELS OFFICE UNDERLYING

COUNSELS OFFICE UNDERLYING

INVESTIGATIVE MATERIALS SUCH AS

INVESTIGATIVE MATERIALS SUCH AS

FBI FORM 302 WITNESS INTERVIEW

FBI FORM 302 WITNESS INTERVIEW

SUMMARIES AND PRESUMPTIVELY

SUMMARIES AND PRESUMPTIVELY

PRINTED DOCUMENTS MADE AVAILABLE

PRINTED DOCUMENTS MADE AVAILABLE

TO THE SPECIAL COUNSELS OFFICE

TO THE SPECIAL COUNSELS OFFICE

BY THE WHITE HOUSE.

BY THE WHITE HOUSE.

HIS DECISION DOES NOT AFFECT HIS

HIS DECISION DOES NOT AFFECT HIS

ABILITY AS PRESIDENT TO INSTRUCT

ABILITY AS PRESIDENT TO INSTRUCT

HIS ADVISERS TO DECLINE TO APPEAR BEFORE A CONGRESSIONAL

APPEAR BEFORE A CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES TO ANSWER QUESTIONS

COMMITTEES TO ANSWER QUESTIONS

ON THESE SAME SUBJECTS.

ON THESE SAME SUBJECTS.

LEADING OFF OUR DISCUSSION TONIGHT IS DEMOCRATICSSION

TONIGHT IS DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSMAN ERIC SWALWELL OF

CONGRESSMAN ERIC SWALWELL OF

CALIFORNIA, A MEMBER OF THE

CALIFORNIA, A MEMBER OF THE

JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND THE

JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND THE

HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AND

HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AND

HE IS ALSO A CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT. A CANDIDATE FOR

PRESIDENT.

CONGRESSMAN SWALWELL, I FIRST OF

CONGRESSMAN SWALWELL, I FIRST OF

ALL WANT TO GET YOUR REACTION TO

ALL WANT TO GET YOUR REACTION TO

THE ATTORNEY GENERALS REFUSAL

THE ATTORNEY GENERALS REFUSAL

TO TESTIFY TODAY.

TO TESTIFY TODAY.

>> GOOD EVENING, LAWRENCE. I BELIEVE ITS CLEAR WHY HE

I BELIEVE ITS CLEAR WHY HE DIDNT WANT TO COME IN.

DIDNT WANT TO COME IN.

HE HAS A LOT TO HIDE.

HE HAS A LOT TO HIDE.

THIS ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS HAD THE SHOVELS OUT FINISHING OFF

THE SHOVELS OUT FINISHING OFF THE BURIAL OF EVIDENCE TO

THE BURIAL OF EVIDENCE TO PROTECT THIS PRESIDENT.

PROTECT THIS PRESIDENT.

HE WAS ALLOWED TO PLAY A HOME

HE WAS ALLOWED TO PLAY A HOME

GAME YESTERDAY ESSENTIALLY IN

GAME YESTERDAY ESSENTIALLY IN

FRONT OF A FRIENDLY SENATE WITH

FRONT OF A FRIENDLY SENATE WITH

CHAIRMAN GRAHAM, BUT TODAY HE

CHAIRMAN GRAHAM, BUT TODAY HE

WAS FACING THE NEW MAJORITY THAT

WAS FACING THE NEW MAJORITY THAT

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAD PUT IN

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAD PUT IN

PLACE TO PUT THIS BALANCE OF

PLACE TO PUT THIS BALANCE OF

POWER ON THESE ABUSES OF POWER.

POWER ON THESE ABUSES OF POWER.

HE WASNT WILLING TO COME IN.

HE WASNT WILLING TO COME IN.

HELL STAND ON PROCESS

HELL STAND ON PROCESS

OBJECTIONS BUT THE AMERICAN

OBJECTIONS BUT THE AMERICAN

PEOPLE WILL JUDGE HIM BY WHETHER

PEOPLE WILL JUDGE HIM BY WHETHER

HE SHOWED UP OR HE DIDNT. WHEN HE WAS SUPPOSED TO COME AND

WHEN HE WAS SUPPOSED TO COME AND TALK ABOUT WHAT THE RUSSIANS DID

TALK ABOUT WHAT THE RUSSIANS DID

IN OUR ELECTION AND WHO THEY WORKED WITH ON THE TRUMP TEAM,

WORKED WITH ON THE TRUMP TEAM, THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, THE TRUMP

THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, THE TRUMP BUSINESSES HE WAS UNWILLING TO

BUSINESSES HE WAS UNWILLING TO DO THAT.

DO THAT.

AND HES GOING TO BE HELD

AND HES GOING TO BE HELD

RESPONSIBLE AND ACCOUNTABLE FOR

RESPONSIBLE AND ACCOUNTABLE FOR

THAT.

THAT.

>> AND SO WHAT IS NEXT?

>> AND SO WHAT IS NEXT?

HOW IS HE GOING TO BE HELD

HOW IS HE GOING TO BE HELD

RESPONSIBLE?

RESPONSIBLE?

>> WELL, IM URGING MY

>> WELL, IM URGING MY

COLLEAGUES TO MOVE FORWARD WITH

COLLEAGUES TO MOVE FORWARD WITH

IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS.

IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS.

LAWRENCE, YOS TAKE THAT LIGHTLY. I CALLED ON HIM TO RESIGN AHTLY.

I CALLED ON HIM TO RESIGN A COUPLE WEEKS AGO.

COUPLE WEEKS AGO. IVE LONG BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT

IVE LONG BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT HIS CONDUCT.

HIS CONDUCT.

FIRST, HE PREJUDGED THE

FIRST, HE PREJUDGED THE

INVESTIGATION BEFORE HE EVEN GOT

INVESTIGATION BEFORE HE EVEN GOT

THE JOB WITH THE LETTER THAT HE

THE JOB WITH THE LETTER THAT HE

SENT TO THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY

SENT TO THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY

GENERAL.

GENERAL.

SECOND, WHEN HE TOOK THE JOB, HE

SECOND, WHEN HE TOOK THE JOB, HE

ACCUSED FALSELY THE PRIOR

ACCUSED FALSELY THE PRIOR

ADMINISTRATION OF SPYING ON THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.OF SPYING ON THE

TRUMP CAMPAIGN. THIRD, THE WAY THAT HE

THIRD, THE WAY THAT HE MISCHARACTERIZED AT THE PRESS

MISCHARACTERIZED AT THE PRESS CONFERENCE THE MUELLER FINDINGS

CONFERENCE THE MUELLER FINDINGS

THAT THERE WAS NO COLLUSION WHEN

THAT THERE WAS NO COLLUSION WHEN

THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION

THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION

AND ALSO STATED THAT MUELLER WAS UNABLE TO FIND OBSTRUCTIONER WAS

UNABLE TO FIND OBSTRUCTION BECAUSE OF DIFFERENT THINGS THAT

BECAUSE OF DIFFERENT THINGS THAT

MUELLER LAID OUT BUT DIDNT KNOW

MUELLER LAID OUT BUT DIDNT KNOW

THE THAT THE MUELLER NOTED THAT IT WAS THE OFFICE OF LEGAL THAT

IT WAS THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL FINDING THAT YOU CANT

COUNSEL FINDING THAT YOU CANT INDICT A PRESIDENT WHICH ALSO

INDICT A PRESIDENT WHICH ALSO STOOD IN THE WAY.

STOOD IN THE WAY.

FINALLY, LAWRENCE, JUST IN THE

FINALLY, LAWRENCE, JUST IN THE

LAST TWO WEEKS, FINDING OUT THAT HE LIED TO CONGRESSMAN CRIST AND

HE LIED TO CONGRESSMAN CRIST AND YESTERDAY, HE MISSED THE

YESTERDAY, HE MISSED THE

DEADLINE WHEN WE ASKED HIM WHAT THE LAWFUL SUBPOENA TO DELIVERT

THE LAWFUL SUBPOENA TO DELIVER ACCOUNT DOCUMENTS OF THE MUELLER

ACCOUNT DOCUMENTS OF THE MUELLER

REPORT.

REPORT.

TIME AFTER TIME, HES PROTECTED

TIME AFTER TIME, HES PROTECTED

THE PRESIDENT, ACED AS HIS LAWYER.SIDENT, ACED AS HIS

LAWYER.

ONLY WAY TO STOP THAT IS MOVE TO

ONLY WAY TO STOP THAT IS MOVE TO

IMPEACH AND ULTIMATE LITTLE

IMPEACH AND ULTIMATE LITTLE

REMOVE HIM.

REMOVE HIM.

>> ISNT CONGRESS TAKING THE EYE

>> ISNT CONGRESS TAKING THE EYE

OFF THE BALL SINCE THE MUELLER REPORT IS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT?

REPORT IS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT? WOULDNT IT BE A SIDETRACK TO GO

WOULDNT IT BE A SIDETRACK TO GO AFTER WILLIAM BARR?

AFTER WILLIAM BARR? >> WE HAVE TO DO ALL OF THAT.

>> WE HAVE TO DO ALL OF THAT.

WE HAVE TO CONTINUE TO

WE HAVE TO CONTINUE TO

UNDERSTAND WHAT THE RUSSIANS ARE

UNDERSTAND WHAT THE RUSSIANS ARE

DOING, HOLD ACCOUNTABLE THE

DOING, HOLD ACCOUNTABLE THE

PERSON WHO WONT GIVE US THE

PERSON WHO WONT GIVE US THE

INFORMATION WE NEED.

INFORMATION WE NEED.

AN EIGHTH OF THE MUELLER REPORT

AN EIGHTH OF THE MUELLER REPORT

IS REDACTED.

IS REDACTED.

IF WERE GOING TO HOLD THE

IF WERE GOING TO HOLD THE

PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE AND PUT

PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE AND PUT

REFORMS IN PLACE SO THE RUSSIANS

REFORMS IN PLACE SO THE RUSSIANS

CANT DO THIS, WE NEED TO SEE

CANT DO THIS, WE NEED TO SEE

THE FULL REPORT.

THE FULL REPORT.

IF HES GOING TO BE A LIVE REALTIME OB STRUKTDER, WE HAVE

REALTIME OB STRUKTDER, WE HAVE TO MOVE TO GET HIM OUT OF THE

TO MOVE TO GET HIM OUT OF THE WAY ESSENTIALLY SO WE CAN GET

WAY ESSENTIALLY SO WE CAN GET WHAT WE NEED.

WHAT WE NEED.

AGAIN, PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT

AGAIN, PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT

WELL, ARE YOU GOING TO IMPEACH

WELL, ARE YOU GOING TO IMPEACH

THE PRESIDENT?

THE PRESIDENT?

IS THAT ON TABLE?

IS THAT ON TABLE?

YES, OF COURSE, THATS ON THE

YES, OF COURSE, THATS ON THE

TABLE.

TABLE.

WERE LOOKING AT HIS CONDUCT

WERE LOOKING AT HIS CONDUCT

RIGHT NOW.

RIGHT NOW.

IF HE HAS SOMEONE WITHSTANDING

IF HE HAS SOMEONE WITHSTANDING

GUARD AND IS NOT FOLLOWING THE

GUARD AND IS NOT FOLLOWING THE

LAW AND TURNING OVER THE

LAW AND TURNING OVER THE

DOCUMENTS WE NEED, THEN WERE

DOCUMENTS WE NEED, THEN WERE

NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET

NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET

THAT.

THAT.

HES EFFECTIVELY ALLOWING THE PRESIDENT TO GET OFF SCOT-FREE.

PRESIDENT TO GET OFF SCOT-FREE. HE NEEDS TO BE HELD ACCOUNT

HE NEEDS TO BE HELD ACCOUNT CREDIBLE.

CREDIBLE.

>> A POINT RACHEL RAISED AT THE END OF HER HOUR.L RAISED AT THE

END OF HER HOUR. I DONT KNOW IF YOU HEARD THAT

I DONT KNOW IF YOU HEARD THAT ABOUT THE NEW STAFFING ON THE

ABOUT THE NEW STAFFING ON THE

INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE THAT

INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE THAT

YOURE A PART OF IT AND THE WAY

YOURE A PART OF IT AND THE WAY

THE CHAIRMAN SCHIFF IS ADDING TO

THE CHAIRMAN SCHIFF IS ADDING TO

THE STAFF OF THE COMMITTEE.

THE STAFF OF THE COMMITTEE.

WHAT CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THAT

WHAT CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THAT

AND WHAT DOES IT MEAN IN.

AND WHAT DOES IT MEAN IN.

>> THIS IS A STAFF WE NEEDED TWO

>> THIS IS A STAFF WE NEEDED TWO

YEARS AGO, LAWRENCE.

YEARS AGO, LAWRENCE.

THE REPUBLICANS IN THE THICK OF THIS INVESTIGATION RIGHT AFTERF

THIS INVESTIGATION RIGHT AFTER WE FOUND OUT ABOUT THE ATTACK

WE FOUND OUT ABOUT THE ATTACK WOULD NOT ALLOW US TO ADD STAFF

WOULD NOT ALLOW US TO ADD STAFF

OR INVESTIGATORS THAT WOULD LOOK

OR INVESTIGATORS THAT WOULD LOOK

AT THE MONEY AND SO WE WERE IN A

AT THE MONEY AND SO WE WERE IN A

HOLE FOR TWO YEARS.

HOLE FOR TWO YEARS.

BUT OUR COMMITTEE AND YOURE

BUT OUR COMMITTEE AND YOURE

STAFF STAFF WORKED HARD TO

STAFF STAFF WORKED HARD TO

ELEVATE THE ISSUE AND THE PUBLIC

ELEVATE THE ISSUE AND THE PUBLIC

AWARENESS.

AWARENESS.

NOW WE HAVE THESE EXPERTS ON THE

NOW WE HAVE THESE EXPERTS ON THE

BEAT SO TO SPEAK.

BEAT SO TO SPEAK.

WE ARE LOOKING AT THE FINANCIAL ASPECT OF THIS.AT THE FINANCIAL

ASPECT OF THIS. CHAIRMAN SCHIFF AND I AND OTHERS

CHAIRMAN SCHIFF AND I AND OTHERS

SUSPECTED THAT MUELLER WAS NOT

SUSPECTED THAT MUELLER WAS NOT

ABLE TO LOOK AT THE FINANCIAL COMPROMISE OF THE PRESIDENTAL

COMPROMISE OF THE PRESIDENT WHICH AGAIN CALLS INTO QUESTION

WHICH AGAIN CALLS INTO QUESTION WHETHER YOU CAN REALLY CHARGE

WHETHER YOU CAN REALLY CHARGE SOMEBODY OR NOT WITH THE

SOMEBODY OR NOT WITH THE

CONSPIRACY IF YOU DONT UNDERSTAND THE FINANCIAL

UNDERSTAND THE FINANCIAL ENTANGLEMENTS.

ENTANGLEMENTS.

WE ARE CAN LEAGUE AT THOSE

WE ARE CAN LEAGUE AT THOSE

EFFECTIVE TANGLEMENTS AND TAKING AN MRI TO THE FINANCIAL RECORDSG

AN MRI TO THE FINANCIAL RECORDS OF THE TRUMP FAMILY, BUSINESSES,

OF THE TRUMP FAMILY, BUSINESSES,

AND CAMPAIGN.

AND CAMPAIGN.

>> CONGRESSMAN ERIC SWALWELL,

>> CONGRESSMAN ERIC SWALWELL,

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR STARTING

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR STARTING

US OFF TONIGHT.

US OFF TONIGHT.

LATER IN THE HOUR WELL DO THE

LATER IN THE HOUR WELL DO THE

PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN INTERVIEW.

PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN INTERVIEW.

WERE JOINED BY CHUCK ROSENBURG,

WERE JOINED BY CHUCK ROSENBURG,

A FORMER SENIOR OFFICIAL AT THE

A FORMER SENIOR OFFICIAL AT THE

FBI AND FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY.

FBI AND FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY.

HE WAS COUNSEL TO ROBERT MUELLER

HE WAS COUNSEL TO ROBERT MUELLER

AT THE FBI, AN MSNBC LEGAL

AT THE FBI, AN MSNBC LEGAL

ANALYST.

ANALYST.

WHEN I READ THIS LETTER TODAY FROM THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TO

FROM THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, I JUST

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, I JUST

WANTED YOU ON THE PHONE

WANTED YOU ON THE PHONE

IMMEDIATELY.

IMMEDIATELY.

SO THEYRE SAYING THAT EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS A WAIVER OF

THOUGH THERE WAS A WAIVER OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE TO ALLOW ALL

EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE TO ALLOW ALL

THESE WHITE HOUSE STAFF PEOPLE TO FREELY DISCUSS WHATEVER THE

TO FREELY DISCUSS WHATEVER THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR ASKED ABOUT,

SPECIAL PROSECUTOR ASKED ABOUT, THAT WAIVER DOESNT EXTEND TO

THAT WAIVER DOESNT EXTEND TO ANY CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE,

ANY CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE, DOESNT EXTEND ANYWHERE ELSE AT

DOESNT EXTEND ANYWHERE ELSE AT

ALL?

ALL?

>> MR. FLOOD EMMET FLOOD, COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT WHO

COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT WHO WROTE THE LETTER, MAKES A PRETTY

WROTE THE LETTER, MAKES A PRETTY

NUANCED AND DIFFICULT ARGUMENT.

NUANCED AND DIFFICULT ARGUMENT.

HE SAID THE PRESIDENT DECIDED NOT TO ASSERT THE PRIVILEGE BUT

NOT TO ASSERT THE PRIVILEGE BUT THAT FAILURE TO ASSERT OR THE

THAT FAILURE TO ASSERT OR THE DECISION NOT TO ASSERT THE

DECISION NOT TO ASSERT THE

PRIVILEGE IS NOT THE SAME AS

PRIVILEGE IS NOT THE SAME AS

WAIVING THE PRIVILEGE. SO ITS NOT A CRAZY ARGUMENT.

SO ITS NOT A CRAZY ARGUMENT. ITS NOT FRIVOLOUS, BUT I DONT

ITS NOT FRIVOLOUS, BUT I DONT THINK IT PREVAILS.

THINK IT PREVAILS.

THE BETTER ARGUMENT I THINK YOULL HEAR IT FROM THE OTHER

YOULL HEAR IT FROM THE OTHER SIDE IS THAT IF YOU WAIVE AS TO

SIDE IS THAT IF YOU WAIVE AS TO ONE, YOU WAIVE AS TO ALL.

ONE, YOU WAIVE AS TO ALL. BUT HERES THE PROBLEM.

BUT HERES THE PROBLEM.

IN ORDER TO GET TO THAT ANSWER,

IN ORDER TO GET TO THAT ANSWER,

ITS GOING TO HAVE TO BE LIT

ITS GOING TO HAVE TO BE LIT

GUYED AND YOU KNOW BETTER. >> WHATS THE TIMETABLEABLE?

>> WHATS THE TIMETABLEABLE? OBVIOUSLY WHAT HAPPENS IS, THEY

OBVIOUSLY WHAT HAPPENS IS, THEY SUBPOENA DON McGAHN AND THE

SUBPOENA DON McGAHN AND THE

PRESIDENT SAYS NO EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.SAYS NO EXECUTIVE

PRIVILEGE.

AND THEN THAT GOES TO COURT.

AND THEN THAT GOES TO COURT.

THAT SUBPOENA IN EFFECT GOES TO

THAT SUBPOENA IN EFFECT GOES TO

COURT.

COURT.

HOW LONG DOES THAT TAKE TO WORK

HOW LONG DOES THAT TAKE TO WORK

IT OUT.

IT OUT.

>> IT GOES TO A FEDERAL DISTRICT

>> IT GOES TO A FEDERAL DISTRICT

COURT.

COURT.

AND WHOEVER LOSES THERE WILL

AND WHOEVER LOSES THERE WILL

INEVITABLY APPEAL TO THE COURT

INEVITABLY APPEAL TO THE COURT

OF APPEALS.

OF APPEALS.

AND SOMEONE WILL LOSE THEREIN AN

AND SOMEONE WILL LOSE THEREIN AN

METHEY MIGHT TAKE THE APPEAL TO

METHEY MIGHT TAKE THE APPEAL TO

THE SUPREME COURT WHICH MAY OR

THE SUPREME COURT WHICH MAY OR

MAY NOT HEAR IT.

MAY NOT HEAR IT.

>> THREE MONTHS BETWEEN EACH

>> THREE MONTHS BETWEEN EACH

STAGE OR POSSIBLY MORE?

STAGE OR POSSIBLY MORE?

>> POSSIBLY MORE.

>> POSSIBLY MORE.

IT COULD BE 12 PLUS MONTHS. THATS PART OF THE STRATEGY,

THATS PART OF THE STRATEGY, RIGHT?

RIGHT?

SO YOU DONT HAVE TO ADVANCE A

SO YOU DONT HAVE TO ADVANCE A

WINNING ARGUMENT.

WINNING ARGUMENT.

YOU JUST HAVE TO ADVANCE AN

YOU JUST HAVE TO ADVANCE AN

ARGUMENT CREDIBLE ENOUGH TO

ARGUMENT CREDIBLE ENOUGH TO

PROLONG THE PROCESS.

PROLONG THE PROCESS.

>> AND LITIGATION IS SOMETHING

>> AND LITIGATION IS SOMETHING

DONALD TRUMP HAS ALWAYS USED AS A TACTIC WITHOUT NECESSARILY AS

A TACTIC WITHOUT NECESSARILY BELIEVING HE COULD EVEN WIN.

BELIEVING HE COULD EVEN WIN.

>> 100% RIGHT. WE SAW THAT TIME AND TIME AGAIN

WE SAW THAT TIME AND TIME AGAIN WHEN IT WAS BUSINESS MAN DONALD

WHEN IT WAS BUSINESS MAN DONALD TRUMP IN MANHATTAN.

TRUMP IN MANHATTAN.

AND THERE OFTEN YOU HAD SOMEBODY

AND THERE OFTEN YOU HAD SOMEBODY

ON THE OTHER SIDE WHO COULDNT AFFORD TO WAGE THAT LEGALLDNT

AFFORD TO WAGE THAT LEGAL BATTLE.

BATTLE.

THAT WONT HAPPEN HERE.

THAT WONT HAPPEN HERE.

BOTH SIDES WILL BE ABLE TO MOUNT

BOTH SIDES WILL BE ABLE TO MOUNT

THEIR ARGUMENTS IN COURT.

THEIR ARGUMENTS IN COURT.

BUT NEVERTHELESS, IF YOURE JUST TRYING TO RUN OUT THE CLOCK,UST

TRYING TO RUN OUT THE CLOCK, THIS IS A WAY TO DO IT.

THIS IS A WAY TO DO IT.

>> YOUR REACTION TO THE ATTORNEY

>> YOUR REACTION TO THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL REFUSING TO SHOW UP AT THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEET

THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TODAY.

TODAY.

>> WE NEED TOE HEAR FROM OUR

>> WE NEED TOE HEAR FROM OUR

ATTORNEY GENERAL.

ATTORNEY GENERAL.

WE ALSO NEED TO HEAR THE TRUTH

WE ALSO NEED TO HEAR THE TRUTH

FROM OUR ATTORNEY GENERAL AND

FROM OUR ATTORNEY GENERAL AND

THAT APPEARS TO BE TWO DIFFERENT

THAT APPEARS TO BE TWO DIFFERENT

THINGS.

THINGS.

BUT I WAS DISAPPOINTED. THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAS A

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAS A CRITICAL ROLE IN THIS SOCIETY.

CRITICAL ROLE IN THIS SOCIETY. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WHETHER YOU

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WHETHER YOU

LIKE HIM OR NOT AT ITS HELM AND

LIKE HIM OR NOT AT ITS HELM AND

HE SHOULD BE THERE TO ANSWER

HE SHOULD BE THERE TO ANSWER

QUESTIONS IN THE PEOPLES HOUSE.

QUESTIONS IN THE PEOPLES HOUSE.

THATS PART OF HIS JOB.

THATS PART OF HIS JOB.

I IMAGINE HE WILL GET THERE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. GET THERE ONE

WAY OR THE OTHER. THEY MAY NOT LIKE ONE ANOTHER

THEY MAY NOT LIKE ONE ANOTHER

BUT HE HAS TO SIT IN THAT CHAIR

BUT HE HAS TO SIT IN THAT CHAIR

AND ANSWER QUESTIONS.

AND ANSWER QUESTIONS.

>> HE HAS TO BY TRADITION.

>> HE HAS TO BY TRADITION.

>> CORRECT.

>> CORRECT.

>> BUT THE TRADITION DOES NOT

>> BUT THE TRADITION DOES NOT

SEEM TO HOLD WITH PRESIDENT

SEEM TO HOLD WITH PRESIDENT

TRUMP OR WITH THIS ATTORNEY

TRUMP OR WITH THIS ATTORNEY

GENERAL NOW.

GENERAL NOW.

>> RIGHT, THE CONGRESS HAS A FEW

>> RIGHT, THE CONGRESS HAS A FEW

CARDS TO PLAY, FOR INSTANCE,

CARDS TO PLAY, FOR INSTANCE,

PURSE STRINGS.

PURSE STRINGS.

THEY ARE THE APPROPRIATORS. THERE ARE THINGS THAT AORS.

THERE ARE THINGS THAT A DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE NEEDS FROM

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE NEEDS FROM A CONGRESS AND SO ONE WAY OR

A CONGRESS AND SO ONE WAY OR

ANOTHER, HES GOING TO HAVE TO GO THERE AND ANSWER THEIRE TO

GO THERE AND ANSWER THEIR QUESTIONS EVENTUALLY.

QUESTIONS EVENTUALLY.

>> BUT THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT

>> BUT THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT

ECONOMIES.

ECONOMIES.

WE ALREADY SAW HIM TESTIFY TO

WE ALREADY SAW HIM TESTIFY TO

THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE AND THATS A VERY DIFFERENTMITTEE AND

THATS A VERY DIFFERENT EXPERIENCE THAN TESTIFYING TO

EXPERIENCE THAN TESTIFYING TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. >> THATS RIGHT.

>> THATS RIGHT.

I STILL PREDICT HE WILL SHOW UP

I STILL PREDICT HE WILL SHOW UP

THERE EVENTUALLY.

THERE EVENTUALLY.

IM JUST SORRY HE WASNT THERE

IM JUST SORRY HE WASNT THERE

TODAY BECAUSE THESE ARE

TODAY BECAUSE THESE ARE

IMPORTANT QUESTIONS JUST LIKE

IMPORTANT QUESTIONS JUST LIKE

THE LITIGATION WHICH WOULD DELAY

THE LITIGATION WHICH WOULD DELAY

THE QUESTIONS TO WHICH WE NEED

THE QUESTIONS TO WHICH WE NEED

ANSWERS, YOU WANT ANSWERS NOW.

ANSWERS, YOU WANT ANSWERS NOW.

AND YOU NEED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THERE NOW.TTORNEY

GENERAL THERE NOW.

THESE ARE TOO IMPORTANT TO PUT

THESE ARE TOO IMPORTANT TO PUT

OFF.

OFF.

>> AND QUICKLY ROBERT MUELLERS

>> AND QUICKLY ROBERT MUELLERS

TESTIMONY, ARE WE -- ARE THEY

TESTIMONY, ARE WE -- ARE THEY

GOING TO BE ABLE TO BLOCK THAT?

GOING TO BE ABLE TO BLOCK THAT?

>> SO AN INTERESTING QUESTION. IF ITS BOB MUELLER PRIVATEION.

IF ITS BOB MUELLER PRIVATE CITIZEN, OF COURSE HE CAN GO

CITIZEN, OF COURSE HE CAN GO TESTIFY.

TESTIFY.

HOWEVER, THERE ARE STILL

HOWEVER, THERE ARE STILL

LIMITATIONS ON IT.

LIMITATIONS ON IT.

HE CANT TALK ABOUT GRAND JURY

HE CANT TALK ABOUT GRAND JURY

INFORMATION, HE CANT TALK ABOUT CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.LK ABOUT

CLASSIFIED INFORMATION. HE CANT TALKING ABOUT ONGOING

HE CANT TALKING ABOUT ONGOING

MATTERS.

MATTERS.

SO ONCE HES A PRIVATE CITIZEN,

SO ONCE HES A PRIVATE CITIZEN,

HES WELCOME TO GO BUT HES

HES WELCOME TO GO BUT HES

STILL NOT WELCOME TO TALK ABOUT

STILL NOT WELCOME TO TALK ABOUT

THINGS THAT ARE OTHERWISE

The Description of House Judiciary Committee Work To Get Robert Mueller Testimony | The Last Word | MSNBC