Where Will Impeachment Inquiry Go? Check History | All In | MSNBC
Where Will Impeachment Inquiry Go? Check History | All In | MSNBC Where Will Impeachment Inquiry Go? Check History | All In | MSNBCWe are going to fight this in Petri, increase tooth and nail, including the production of any documents or Witnesses, or try to make a legal argument houseboat. First, that’s not anywhere in the Constitution they’re just making that up to be fair. The last two impeachment increase began in part with a full houseboat. All of this just highlights the fact that each presidential impeachment is its own thing with no charge, there’s basically nothing in the Constitution about how to actually go about doing it. Only done it three times in our nation’s history or out past the frontier tell my assistant, Watergate special prosecutor now and MSNBC legal analyst Jill wine-banks against return, the White House. This is a big deal constitutionally. What does it mean? Where does it go and who resolved it? Well, impeachment process process before there was a house phone during the Nixon impeachment we started actually reading the Constitution and trying to figure out with a high crime and misdemeanor was way before we had a house authorization does nonsense. What the what the administration say – it’s not historical! Secondly, Administration totally stonewalled us. He had these three ring binders. Is it a given everything but, of course they were doctor transcripts and when we compare the transcripts against the actual tapes, that was, they were not just expletive deleted, but there were other important. What’S Deleted things added, they would totally doctor. That was my view about the transcript we, so I mean you can’t trust it right. Recalls right, like tapes, have these missing section tossing to have these ellipses, it doesn’t seem to Prime out what would be the process for going about. Rich will be the process for going about to get the full thing. The argument this is, after all, presidential conversation, already released this summary or the summary transcript. So I think that that is not going to be a strong argument here, but in the end of the day, what we’ve seen from this White House is their position is: will they care they’ll, just say no and as live said It ultimately more to gate? Article 3, The Third Article, was failure to respond to subpoena it’s a series of subpoenas and that’s what happened and and we’ll see whether that’s what happens now or just gets resolved by the courts. Who who’s going to adjudicate this and who, which branch has Primacy? And one other thing is fasting me Jill is that they are clearly in a stronger position. Having just announced like already that has made, people show up and down have been turned over there, something about the invitation about. It seems to me that has its own kind of horse. Well, it’s not just a imagination that you have because the courts have made it clear that when there’s a Judicial proceeding pending you have more hours and in impeachment is a Judicial proceeding. The subpoena. In our case, of course, was for a grand jury and ultimately, the one that went to the Supreme Court was for trial. It wasn’t the grand jury it already indicted and we then subpoenaed War, tapes and you’re right. The ellipses that are in the moment of this Scandal or the 18-minute day out be willing to go in there. The issue somebody with a well, it’s it’s an impeachment. It’S not traditional, however, but been Stripped Away by having an impeachment or inquiry is any organ. Has no legislative purpose, which is one of the things they’ve been saying. One of their major argument has been no legislative purpose, for the purpose here is to investigate with his been abuse of power and plainly they don’t have any of that kind of Defense during the Nixon impeachment said: we’re not going to the courts, because the impeachment power Is solely in the hands of Congress and the courts can’t determine what Congress decides is important, so the two things I want to say, but that number one is that if Congress decides, that means the American people in the end, because they support this process, then they Will be an impeachment article on this ground, and the second thing is that I think Adam Schiff is really smart and the other committee chairs of being really smart about how they’re handling these subpoenas. Because what they’re saying to the administration is, if you don’t turn over those subpoenas, we’re going to draw an adverse influence, sorry inference and we’re going to decide that, basically, you got something to cover up and hide out there. Judicial proceedings there’s no like pleading the fifth. Like we’re the ones sitting in judgement permissible in any court, but let’s face it, people would normally just draw that conclusion. Even with the 5th Amendment you know, you’re constructing you shouldn’t draw an adverse inference, but people do because they know you’re hiding something. If you won’t come forward with it, let’s go back to this issue of whether you need a house resolution. One of the reasons they had house resolutions in 74 in the Clinton impeachment was because of the nature of the house rules as they then existed since that time. The house rules in the committee rules have been. They are much greater power to issue subpoenas just buy the chair and they have much greater power to have staff depositions than they had sew-in in those cases, one of the purposes of the resolution with the to increase power beyond with the house in delegated through rules. It’S not linked to the ability to get information actually even need that, because our house rules of the Congress passed, the house passed the beginning. Here’S here’s my question about this moment for use in a historical perspective, Hill real about whatever I feel like things are much more Dynamic than that. We genuinely don’t know what’s going to happen and I’m curious having lived through Watergate. If you have that feeling to absolutely Massacre and President Nixon ordered the firing, the special prosecutor, the American people, said: they’d, wait a minute. We’Re not a Banana Republic, wait a minute Congress. You do something when we started it, we didn’t know what an impatient was. We didn’t even know what a high crime and misdemeanor was. We didn’t have a vote in the House of Representatives vote count on the committee. Forget the Senate. We didn’t even know what the case was when we started. We started from scratch, but we built a case and we did it in a fair way. We build it on based on some evidence in the American people were with us, and so anyone who would have predicted it that time never be an impeachment. They were wrong. You can’t predict this: it’s a congress acting responsible there in our way the American people will be with it. Thank you all for being here thanks for watching MSNBC on YouTube videos. Chris Hayes talks with three people who were part of the Watergate impeachment inquiry. No one then knew where things would end, either. Aired on 10/04/19.
» Subscribe to MSNBC: http://on.msnbc.com/SubscribeTomsnbc
MSNBC delivers breaking news, in-depth analysis of politics headlines, as well as commentary and informed perspectives. Find video clips and segments from The Rachel Maddow Show, Morning Joe, Meet the Press Daily, The Beat with Ari Melber, Deadline: White House with Nicolle Wallace, Hardball, All In, Last Word, 11th Hour, and more.
Connect with MSNBC Online
Visit msnbc.com: http://on.msnbc.com/Readmsnbc
Subscribe to MSNBC Newsletter: http://MSNBC.com/NewslettersYouTube
Find MSNBC on Facebook: http://on.msnbc.com/Likemsnbc
Follow MSNBC on Twitter: http://on.msnbc.com/Followmsnbc
Follow MSNBC on Instagram: http://on.msnbc.com/Instamsnbc
Where Will Impeachment Inquiry Go? Check History | All In | MSNBC