Page 1015 - Contempt News Today

About these conversations because it makes it look like they could be damaging to the president. >> matt, if its not executive privilege, what is it? >> well, i think what all the lawyers in the room believe it is, it feels a lot like attorney/client privilege but the president isnt the attorney generals client. so theyre thinking were having confidential communications when their tingly sense tells them they shouldnt talk about it. >> dni coats and admiral rogers. >> riekght. you see theyve com...

From todays hearing. >> well, very little because he really had a case of either convenient amnesia where he didnt recall details of conversations that could have been implicating on him, and he frankly found a very creative dodge that i think is problematic. i think when witnesses refuse to testify, refuse to respond to inquiries like we saw in the house republicans, they should be held in contempt. >> the argument that the attorney general gave today about why it did not violate the terms of h...

It also saved the president the political heat of exercising executive privilege. because that is something that donald trump might have been criticized for or would have been criticized for. he didnt do it. >> what can we do about it? we had senator blumenthal say we will subpoena him. he cannot do that with the special counsel. sure he can. >> what you have to do is get the courts involved. >> the congressional hearing no matter which committee, even a special counsel cannot compel him? >> the...

Conversations because it makes it look like they could be actually damaging to the president. >> if its not executive privilege, what is it? >> i think what all the lawyers in the room believe it is, it feels a lot like attorney-client privilege but theyre thinking were having confidential communications when they -- their sense tells them they shouldnt talk about it. >> but codes. >> exactly but what you see is the executive branch have come up with a strategy to not answer these questions. >> ...

Questions or being intentionally evasive in answering questions. and im wondering why no one has raised the issue of citing the attorney general for contempt. >> thats a great question, mike. ill tell you, it was deeply troubling to see someone as aggressive in his patriotism as a senator bobbing and weaving as attorney general, and clearly from the record disinterested in the details of russias attack on our democracy in our last election. former fbi director comey was very clear last week in h...

Frankly found a very creative dodge that i think is probl problematic. i think when witnesses refuse to testify, refuse to respond to inquiries like we saw in the house republicans, they should be held in contempt. >> the argument that the attorney general gave today about why it did not violate the terms of his recusal to be involved at all in the decision to fire james comey, is that hes recused from one particular case, but he cannot allow that to impede him in dispatching his duties. and if,...

He might in the future, what was surprising, its the same thing that happened with coats, and nsa director not answering. not because there was any assertion of privilege. so were seeing an emergence of systematic pattern of quasi executive privilege. i was talking, said previous officials have dunk this in previous 5d manages, more disturbing. the mechanism if congress wants to push back, they cant just invite witnesses to come and testify, they have to subpoena them. they are in a position to ...

Do you think among republican colleagues, systematically subpoena witnesses preempt i havely. >> what it sounds like when youre sitting at the bar, at home watching nba finals, these guys are asked questions they could say yes or no to and want to hide behind privilege. they could say no and dismiss the questions. what we could do is seek their testimony under threat of contempt. whether that courage exists among my republican colleagues im not seeing it what i think is interesting he told the w...

If not, then you cant simply say executive privilege would dictate that i cant cover it. unless the president tells you directly i want you to invoke it on this one thing, its sort of a meaningless turn. now, that said, that doesnt mean that former senator and attorney general has to answer. he can still say, i prefer not, as rogers did. but this is grossly misused, ov overused and misunderstood. >> he could say these are private conversations ive had with the president. >> and at that point, as...

You know, the congress does not have a lot of options with witnesses who refuse to answer questions. you know, theoretically they could find someone in contempt and then go to court, but you cant do that the day of the testimony. so, they really are at the mercy of sessions. sessions is certainly going to have to answer questions about why he didnt tell the full truth about his meetings with russians. i mean, hes acknowledged that he didnt disclose those. but hell have some explanation that it w...