Discusses impeachment efforts and the supply complain. Her recentalus on piece on asylumseekers at th u. S. Mexico border. Host good morning and welcome to washington journal for wednesday, october 2, 2019. We would like to hearrom republicans only this first hour. Republican callers only to hear your thoughts on the impeachment inquiry on President Trump. Do you still support him . How do you think he is responding . We will also look at the latest polls on how other republicans are feeling. Republicans only. 2027488000 if you live in the eastern and central time zones. 2027488001 for the mountain and pacific time zones. You can send us a text. That is 2027488003. Make sure you put your name on there, where you are texting from. cspanwjs how you send a tweet and we are on facebook at facebook. Com cspan. At the start of the program yesterday, we looked at polls. More specifically on republican support, the impeachment and job support numbers. Lets look at this Monmouth University poll
[reporters shouting questions] we continued the conversation on impeachment in the whistleblower complaint against President Trump. The complaint against donald trump. Paul worsens wide paul the senior counsel during the whitewater investigation. Ou worked for ken starr do you see any legal similarities between that investigation and the investigation against President Trump . As it is being conducted by the Intelligence Committee . A differentnk it is kettle of fish that present its own level of issues. At the highest level, the legal question of what constitutes a high crime and misdemeanor and what are Congress Investigative authorities, that does not change. But there is a significant difference in the nature of two levels ats on least. The first is that the congress in the clinton investigation really did not conduct any independent investigation of its own. It relied almost exclusively on the input of the independent counsel, ken starr. That was not necessarily inappropriate. He
High crime and misdemeanor and what are Congress Investigative authorities, that does not change. But there is a significant difference in the nature of two levels ats on least. The first is that the congress in the clinton investigation really did not conduct any independent investigation of its own. It relied almost exclusively on the input of the independent counsel, ken starr. That was not necessarily inappropriate. He had spent over a year investigating the lewin ski y matter. The lewinsk by contrast, there has not been a real outside investigation at least of the trumpukraine allegations, so that gives congress a real job to do in uncovering what they think might or might not turn out to be impeachable. Host let me ask about the whistleblower himself. A piece in the atlantic ran over the weekend the atlantic ran over the weekend. Small details that help to confirm his credibility. Explain that. Well, in evaluating a witness, you want to understand other or not what they are telli
For most, in many cases really helps, statutes, house signals authority reaches that office. Ournd, whether constitutional gaps there are constitutional gaps raises questions. Did you state the house itself has the power . Power to issue a subpoena, the house itself . Mr. Consovoy not the constitutional power. The house itself because your argument to me sounded like it was all about the delegation of the committee not being explicit. I have no i find no argument that the house itself he said that house had to be explicit that it was giving what he had to the committee. Mr. Consovoy im sorry, im not getting the house rules state j. Millett including subpoena power . The vast majority, which is whether a subpoena is constitutional. Your first just on constitutional argument given your issues about legislative just to understand, i am understanding trying to understand what your argument is. The house itself would issue a subpoena and we would be over on the rest of the brief oral argume
Versus mazars usa llp and committees on oversight and reform of the United States house of representatives. Mr. Consovoy for the appellants, mr. Leonard for the appellee. Good morning. Good morning. Mr. Consovoy as both the Supreme Court and this court the courts must first answer whether the committee has statutory [indiscernable]. In this case, and for the reason set forth in this courts opinion [indiscernable]. The language in the house rules is not jurisdiction to personally subpoena the president for his private financial records. Foremost, in many cases, and as the office has held, statutes, and here house rules must name the president. There must be a clear statement before their authority may reach that office. Second, as in the Supreme Courts decision, where there are constitutional doubts, the committees authority should be read narrowly not to trigger those serious questions. J. Millett do you dispute that the house itself has this power . Mr. Consovoy it has the statuatory