Is Barr stealing Trump's 'impeachment spotlight'?

Channel: Fox Business
Published: 05/02/2019

Description
Former Ted Cruz campaign pollster Chris Wilson and Democratic Strategist Roger Fisk on Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's, D-Calif. comments on potential push to impeach President Trump and the political fallout from the Mueller report. FOX Business Network (FBN) is a financial news channel d...



Transcript
And the nancy pelosi who has assiduously avoided the i-word impeachment out of nowhere, bringing just that up moments ago. Take a look. Five of the six committees of jurisdiction have the potential for subpoenas. They have enormous use the penis, but that's where we see some of that activity, as you probably know, on the articles of impeachment for president nixon article three was that he ignored ...
the subpoenas of congress that he did not honor the subpoenas of congress. This is very, very serious statements being made by the president of the united states has given a blanket statement that he's not going to honor any subpoenas his obstruction of justice. All right get a little bumpy therebut. I think you get the gist of what she is saying, the first time she is formally using impeachment as a possibility and laying the groundwork at the president's doorstep, saying by his ignoring these subpoenas and demands that his people testify, including by the way the attorney general. The united states, you know the course is now set. Is it former cruise campaign, pollster ted cruz, kept it close to? I apologize chris wilson, a democratic strategist, roger says roger. Is that taking a premature leap here? It'S certainly among those issues, sort of frazzling investors a little bit should it be well first off thanks so much for having me, i think what specifically triggered the reactionfrom. The speaker was the attorney general's response to the question from representative crist about whether or not there had been communications from the special counsel to the attorney general expressing reservations or any kind of contention about how the attorney general was portraying the investigation in his four-page summary. The attorney general said that there were none and then yesterday he explained at length that there are word discrepancies and there were issues, and i think when someone is an installation pelosi, he essentially perjured himself right yeah and that's my point, which is you can have a Broad pattern of dishonesty, but when someone does that to the institution that you are the leader of yeah, i thinkshe looks upon it as a responsibility where that is a very specific fact that she can point to, as as breaking faith in the separation of powers.

All right that might be so you guys are legal experts. I'M not all. I know chris listen is that the report did come out. People had a chance to read the 92 % of it. That was not redacted and they can decide for themselves. Did he overreach or not no far, smarter people that i have come to the conclusion he didn't take? Any undue leaps, others have said well. Obstruction is in the eye of the beholder something that report seemed to hint at, but didn't make a final conclusioni'll leave people who know this stuff better to debate. What i'm wondering, though, is has the train left the station for much longer more involved, more acrimonious, possibly much more far-reaching hearings, even impeachment hearings than 24 hours ago. We thought possible well time will tell, and i think the way the democrats are acting on the judiciary committee in the house is really it's just throwing a temper. Tantrum is your last guest said, and it is it's unfortunate because the american public has moved on on this. There has been numerous polls that have come out and i can cite three or four off top of my head that show that people just don't care anymore, theywant, the people they want, the congress to move on. They want washington to start talking about other things and so really we're at a point where nobody really cares about this anymore, except for the inside the beltway press corps and a bunch of liberal activists on twitter and that's the problem.

Is those liberal activists on twitter? The ones who are motivating and kind of directing the democratic leadership in the house then call the attorney general didn't want to call his bluff and just say all right. Now there i'll meet with you, i'm very comfortable in my own legal shoes, i'm happy to take any and all questions but yeah. What i couldn't understand, the reasonwith, the you know the separate lawyers doing the questions. I understand that, but it just fires up the both sides right. It does, and i think he proved he's very comfortable, his own legal shoes, as you said yesterday, in front of the senate, but what he was walking into of nadler whenever they brought in an outside counsel was just nothing more than a pr stunt. And i don't blame barr at all, i mean he stood, they stayed there yesterday answered every question. That was a that was given to him, and i think did so very very emphatically and why walk in front of a committee where you've got jerry nadler? Who, yesterday is cutting offthe mics for republican members of the committee and two weeks ago, gets owned and just absolutely embarrassed by candace owens, who made him would call if i just mac salute moron. I mean it really gets to the point to where i, if i'm him, i wouldn't want to go in front of that committee either, and i got to tell you i mean the one p. The people on that committee, guys think should be most upset. Are the democrat members who were basically being supplanted by outside counsel? What does it say whenever your own chairman doesn't have the confidence in you to be able to sit there and ask questions and he hires other people tocome in and do me that isn't a roger? I'M just wondering whether you think democrats got to be careful here that they could be over playing their hand and all of a sudden local uns l, it's kind of like republicans where it would go get to bill clinton. It came back to bite their high knees. What do you think i do think they need to be cautious if you come into this with an over political agenda, that's not going to work well in the long run.

This needs to be driven by the facts, but i don't in the short term, the attorney general is doing a favor for the administration, because he's serving himself upas a very attractive target for criticism, because a lot of his performance yesterday, i think, was odd i've. I grew up with a very stoic and kind of law & order. Gop and i've never heard anyone talk about republicans feelings so much as we did yesterday, the president felt like the the inquiry wasn't just and the president felt like he was under siege. I don't know when this whole thing with feelings came in and i don't think feelings that i just would if he was strongly feeling that these obstruction issues that came up 10 to a dozen of them, wouldn't he feel just as strongly in his own feelings to Say these are indictable theseare legal challenges that must be addressed, and i and i would love to see the reaction when attorney general holder went before the trey gowdy's and the jason chaffetz of the world and said president obama feels like this is an honest accusation. So we're not going to answer it. People would lose their minds, it's not appropriate to say that they that the president can choose to fire someone, because the accusations that are being investigated he feels are dishonest. That'S that's not how the justice system works to justify firing. Someone because of someone's feelings - that's not the gop. I grew up with all right, but then to justify find the attorney general because he ended upreleasing a report later than many wanted, and this characterized it or they say mischaracterize. Is that worth his job? Well, it's clear! It'S clear to me that the four-page letter was driven by the white house. I mean some of the wording in there is so tortured. Know that you don't know that.

Well, i don't, i don't think attorney general bar would put in the phrase that cooperation is defined as a tacit or expressed agreement, meaning unless people sat around a table in the spring of 2016. This couldn't have been a conspiracy. That'S an extremely odd and high standard to try to reach to prove a pattern of behavior which is actually borne out in thereport, all right, which we have more time. But you both feel very passionately about this, that this is part of the debate and why people are getting a little concerned again on this show guys we will try to thanks co-op. Thank you guys very much.


Watch Next

Loading...