Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one: Andrew McCarthy

Channel: Fox Business
Published: 12 hours ago

Description
Fox News contributor Andrew McCarthy gives his take on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s comments about the Russia investigation and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s response to Mueller’s statement. FOX Business Network (FBN) is a financial news channel delivering real-time information across all pl...



Transcript
Let'S bring in fox news, contributor and former assistant to the us attorney of the southern district of the state of new york andrew mccarthy, andy, it's great to have you here. What did you make a muller statement today? Well, i don't think he could have helped the democrats more by anything. He would have said in testimony. You know basically david. What he said is if on obstruction, if i had t ...
ought there was no obstruction, i would have said so. As far as bringing a case, i couldn't do that because of the office of legal counsel guidance and in this system it's for the congress to deal with presidential misconduct. So you know if you're jerrynadler, he gave you basically everything that you needed at this point and est forbes here. Why did you think muller capitulated? I mean this is very different from the tone of the report. What he had told attorney general barr. Why did he cave what they have a backbone room and they claire what he wants to go to cocktail parties? Well, steve. I think if i think what you saw today was evident in the report itself, i mean it seems to me that the one thing that he was arguably needed for i have to say arguably, because i don't think we needed a special counsel at all, but the One thing he was needed for wasto resolve the question of whether there was sufficient evidence to bring an obstruction case or not. That was the terms under which he took this case and he was derelict in in deciding not to decide that.

So you know to me: this is just more of the same today if he thinks the president should be impeached. I at this point i almost wish he just come out and say it, but instead you know we continue to play these inferential games and it's christina parts notes before i ask you a question. I just want to preface that we did see markets go lower today. After the moller report, however, you had some algorithms that did createsome of that initial momentum, so i'm concerned about investors going forward over the next 1. 5 years that, after toy with the idea that impeachment could be on the horizon but andy for you. You heard muller's commentary. The fact that he started almost with russian and paraphrasing pretty much saying it was an assault on american democracy and then ending his conversation with russia again and the president has largely disputed or ignored russia's involvement in the meddling of elections. Do you think that's the right move at this point? Well, you don't look. I'Ve always thought that the that the russia narrative about interfering in the election - i'm not saying they didn't, do it. Of course they didit, but i've always thought that was really overstated. I mean the russians have been interfering with our election since the bolshevik revolution, but is that, okay, how could overstated just be? Okay? It'S! Never! Okay! It'S never been okay! It'S it's actually not been! Okay, even before it happened to democrats. Oddly enough, it's never okay, but the point is everything that the russians did.

Obama knew about in real time in the last debate, between clinton and obama, which was about ten days or so before the election when trump suggested that the results might be, it might not be legitimate and he reserved the right to question the results after the election. Both clinton and later obamawent nuts, how could you possibly question the legitimacy of our elections and that was under circumstances where everything we know about russia now they knew at the time right. Indeed, scott martin, thanks for joining us, so it kind of pursuant to christina's question. We'Ve got another year and a half give or take a few days till the next election, and do you think speaker pelosi has the right game plan here. You know she was saying they were gon na continue and investigate continue to litigate and so forth. I mean moeller had two years, multiple millions of taxpayer dollars didn't find anything. Do you think she's playing the right hand here it's instead of doing that, insteadof say focusing on actually winning the election and about a year and a half? Well, i think she is focusing on winning the election. She'S got a hard job, because she's got a very big divided caucus. Some of them won trump impeach tomorrow, some of them are in seats and in districts that trump won. That would prefer that this whole thing go away. So i think her strategy from the beginning has been to play kind of good cop, bad cop she's gon na be the one out there talking about their positive agenda for the country, jerry nadler and adam schiff will be doing the scut work on impeachment. You know the question here is: do youreally think this was ever about impeachment? I'Ve always thought just to to line up with the progression is i thought the counterintelligence investigation was a pretext to do a criminal investigation without a crime.

The criminal investigation is a pretext for impeachment, and impeachment is a pretext for the actual agenda, which is to make make trump unelectable by around the beginning of the autumn next year, but andy. How would that make him unelectable? I mean i see the other side of it where it could actually hurt democrats in the case of proceeding with impeachment proceedings - and i think speaker pelosi knows that is and is concerned that proceeding with impeachment may actually rally the base andgo against democrats in 2020 yeah. I think that's a great point and i think that's why she's proceeding cautiously, if, if there was a clear way to go here like if there were, if impeachment was the obvious thing to do, i don't think you would see any division at all among the democrats, But there's a real, you know, there's a bunch of differences in terms of what their approach to this is. Some of that is because some of them are in safe districts, but some of it is because people like pelosi realized that, if they're going to hold the house how the election comes out. Obviously, the next time is very important and this couldgo either way if they are seen as over playing their hand, it can blow up on them, so they have the luxury of time. I think they're going to keep their eyes on the pole. Let'S remember that. Impeachments a political process, not a legal one and if they think they get some traction when they have some additional impeachment proceedings and hearings, and that i think, will go for the moment that you're not gon na get an impeachment committee. I think you know you have the judiciary committee, the intelligence committee they'll continue their work if they think they get some traction. They'Ll go otherwise. They'Ll just try to bruised up the president and andy andy. I wantto go back to mahler.

I want to go back to mahler for a second because he said something that really appears to be contrary to the way our system of justice works. He said, and i'm quoting him if we had evidence that the president did not commit a crime we would have said so. Prosecutors aren't supposed to prove that you're innocent they're supposed to prove that you're guilty right. I mean to use the negative there if we had evidence that the president did not commit a crime, then he should have kept his mouth shut right. Yeah. The most disturbing part about this dave from the beginning has been the way that he, he basically turnedthe constitutional burden of proof around, so that it's not the prosecutors job to assemble sufficient evidence. It'S now the suspects job to prove that he's been exonerated to prove that there's not enough evidence to charge and that's not the american way. What'S supposed to happen, is prosecutors speak in court? You don't speak until you're ready formally to charge someone which is the point in our system where you become armed with all of the constitutional rights to make a compelling defense. If you have one we're not supposed to just collect information and then put it out into the court of public opinion to taint people up andy, you know muller, you know of the attorney generalbar. Why didn't muller rise to the occasion make a firm opinion and also since he had a broad writ or interpreted as a broad writ? Why didn't he investigate as bars now going to have happen? What led to this whole collusion business? What led to this initial investigation? No there's the real story behind the story about the misbehavior of the cia fbi, the whole crew of them. Why didn't he do that and go out in a blaze of glory? This is a man who rose to the occasion, as i think barr is now doing. Well, i think he was powerfully influenced by the staff that he assembled steve, which which obviously, why did he saylaurie laughs? There is all democrat so from the beginning, it had a political taint.

Instead of appointing people of both sides would say. Okay, this. This is an impartial group. Well we're gon na try to get to the truth instead of a political agenda yeah, i i don't know him well enough to get into his head on that. A lot of these people that he picked are people he's been working with. For a number of years i do agree with you that it's essential that we get to the bottom of the investigative decision-making that's been done. I think it's good. That bar is is looking in at that, and i also think you know if mullerhad regarded that as part of his mandate. Maybe that wouldn't have gone so well either. Maybe that wouldn't have been as well investigated. I think it was fine that he just decided his mandate was. This limited thing of you know was trump in collusion with russian.

Did he obstruct the investigation? I wouldn't have wanted him investigating anything else. I don't think he did a great job on what he was called on to investigate.


Watch Next

Loading...