Latest / The Oath and The Office / Impeach Trump? Rep. Al Green Makes the Case

Transcript

Impeach Trump? Rep. Al Green Makes the Case · The Oath and The Office

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: This episode is brought to you by the Freedom From
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: Religion Foundation.
• 0:05
  Speaker 2: Quick civics question.
• 0:06
  Speaker 3: When public officials.
• 0:07
  Speaker 1: Swear an oath to the Constitution, does that mean protecting
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: everybody's rights or promoting their own religion? Because as students
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: head back to school, that question matters. Public schools serve
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: families of every faith and no faith at all. They
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: should not be used to pressure students, promote religious messages,
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: or make any child feel like an outsider. FFRF says
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: the oath is to the Constitution, not a creed. The
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: Freedom From Religion Foundation works to keep state and church
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: separate and speaks up for free thinkers, atheists, agnostics, and
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: non-religious Americans.
• 0:48
  Speaker 3: Learn more at.
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: Ffrf.us slash office. That's ffrf.us slash o-f-f-i-c-e.
• 1:12
  Speaker 4: Welcome to another episode of the Oath in the Office podcast.
• 1:14
  Speaker 4: I'm John Fiegel saying it's so good to have you
• 1:16
  Speaker 4: with us. And we have a very packed episode today.
• 1:20
  Speaker 4: Please allow me to welcome the star of our show,
• 1:23
  Speaker 4: the Mac himself, the author of the Oath in the Office,
• 1:25
  Speaker 4: Professor Corey Brettschneider. Corey, good to see you, sir.
• 1:28
  Speaker 3: Thanks so much, John.
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: We have an amazing guest today, of course, Congressman Green
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: from Texas. who's really been at the forefront of the
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: movement to impeach Donald Trump. We'll talk today about how
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: the leadership has been reluctant to run on impeachment or
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: to try to do it when they obviously don't have
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: the votes to do it in this Congress. But Congressman
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: Green has seen it as a principle to fight for impeachment.
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: And so that's why he's going to be a really
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: important guest for us to have on part of our
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: look at the midterms and what's at stake, what to
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: do if the Democratic Party wins the midterms.
• 2:02
  Speaker 3: What legislation do we need? What oversight? What actions? And
• 2:05
  Speaker 3: he really is an ideal.
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: Guest to follow up on the amazing episode with Ted Lieu,
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: Congressman Ted Lieu, last week.
• 2:13
  Speaker 4: I'll go beyond that. Al Green is a fearless hero,
• 2:16
  Speaker 4: and he's the guy who's been showing the rest of
• 2:18
  Speaker 4: the Democratic caucus, go ahead and introduce articles of impeachment
• 2:21
  Speaker 4: all you want and put these people on the defense.
• 2:24
  Speaker 4: So I'm very honored he's joining us today. We have
• 2:27
  Speaker 4: a lot to cover as well. The watch for Hegseth
• 2:29
  Speaker 4: to get fired or impeached, as well as now the
• 2:32
  Speaker 4: lawfare against Ilhan Omar. But I want to begin By
• 2:35
  Speaker 4: just saying you saw the Elon Musk documentary by Alex Gibney,
• 2:40
  Speaker 4: which is all about the incredible influence this guy has
• 2:43
  Speaker 4: exercised over our government. Can I ask you about it
• 2:46
  Speaker 4: a bit? I mean, is this a story? I haven't
• 2:48
  Speaker 4: seen the movie yet, but is it a story about
• 2:50
  Speaker 4: conflicts of interest? An unelected billionaire exercising unauthorized government power
• 2:55
  Speaker 4: or a president claiming authority that Constitution just doesn't give him?
• 2:58
  Speaker 4: I mean, what was your takeaway from the film?
• 3:01
  Speaker 3: It really is all of the above.
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: And it fits our theme in that Elon Musk really,
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: at the behest of Donald Trump, led the assault on Congress,
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: that all of these agencies, which were created by legislation,
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: which had laws requiring their allocation of money and their spending,
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: were instead destroyed by Elon Musk and his doge boys.
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: And the film, four hours, I should say, and not
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: a moment, that's boring, looks in depth at how all
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: of this happened and how So much of it, too,
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: was done by people like Big Balls, who we've talked about,
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: and others aged 19 to 25 who had no idea
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: how the government worked or was supposed to work and
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: just really took a random knife to programs fighting disease,
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: fighting poverty abroad, resulting in the deaths of many, many people.
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: And at one point in the documentary, they have an
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: interview with someone who essentially says, one of the Doge crew,
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: who says, wow, randomly, the way government works is that
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: agencies just ask the Treasury for money and the Treasury
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: just gives it to them. I mean, that is nothing
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: to do with the way that government works. And anybody
• 4:11
  Speaker 1: who knows anything about government knows that in our system,
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: Congress makes laws that the president is supposed to carry out.
• 4:18
  Speaker 3: And so what Musk really.
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: Did was reverse that relationship and attack, do nothing less
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: than attack Congress. I'll say, too, I saw Gibney, the
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: director at Angelica Movie Theater in Soho, along with Ashley St. Clair,
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: who's now turned on mosque. And for those who don't know,
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: Ashley St. Clair was a MAGA advocate activist who had
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: a child with mosque and saw firsthand just how destructive
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: he was, not just of the law, but of our elections.
• 4:48
  Speaker 1: And she surmised that there was a lot of suspicion,
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: for instance, about the fact that He seemed to know
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: the outcome of the election when Donald Trump won the
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: presidency long before the polls had indicated that.
• 5:00
  Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, we've had a lot of evil robber
• 5:01
  Speaker 4: barons in this country's history, but we haven't had them
• 5:04
  Speaker 4: who are given control of the federal government to cut
• 5:07
  Speaker 4: aid to desperate, hungry and sick foreign people in the
• 5:10
  Speaker 4: third world. I mean, the U.S.
• 5:12
  Speaker 3: A.I.D.
• 5:13
  Speaker 4: Story is why I want to see this film the most.
• 5:15
  Speaker 4: Congress establishes the agency in law. not unlike the Kennedy Center.
• 5:20
  Speaker 4: But Congress has always exercised their statutory authority over U.S.
• 5:24
  Speaker 4: aid's mission and funding. And of course, this Trump administration
• 5:28
  Speaker 4: with Musk talking about the wood chipper moved to dismantle
• 5:31
  Speaker 4: major parts of the operations. And we already know that
• 5:34
  Speaker 4: hundreds of thousands of humans are projected to die directly
• 5:38
  Speaker 4: as a consequence. But what's the constitutional significance of that?
• 5:43
  Speaker 4: How much discretion does a president have to reorganize an
• 5:46
  Speaker 4: agency created by Congress. And again, I feel like we're
• 5:48
  Speaker 4: talking about the Kennedy Center.
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: Well, I mean, I'll start from the beginning, which is
• 5:52
  Speaker 1: when the framers talked about Article Two, which creates the
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: presidency and the executive branch. They use the idea that
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: the execution of the law was the job of the president.
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: In other words, Congress makes the law and the president
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: was supposed to carry that out. And if you think
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: about what's supposed to happen with USAID, there was a
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: decision made after lots of reasoning and thinking about it
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: to create an agency that would represent American interests abroad
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: by being decent and by fighting starvation and by fighting
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: the worst effects of poverty, especially in moments of crisis,
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: and that that would in turn aid America's presence in
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: the world and standing. And so the idea that one
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: person basically assigned by Donald Trump just came along and
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: slashed that. And I should say, too, just to make
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: the effects dramatic, because this is an abstract. I mean,
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: people die. We're still getting the full count. But, you know,
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: it's potentially in the millions of people who have died.
• 6:50
  Speaker 1: Things were done like just a refusal to deliver food
• 6:54
  Speaker 1: aid because there was this belief that this was somehow frivolous.
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: And the food was actually allowed to rot. And in
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: the must documentary, they show the actual food rotting. They
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: have Samantha Power, who was in charge of this agency,
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: talking about, you know, in tears, really. the frustration of
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: trying to get food to people who were literally dying
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: while the must team just, you know, for their random
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: reasons took the scalpel to all of this.
• 7:19
  Speaker 3: I mean, they, they did things.
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: Like they confused computer programming that put certain dates of
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: birth that weren't known at a default that was, you know,
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: some random number in the 19th century and use that
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: to claim that there was fraud. I mean, they just
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: were acting in such a reckless fashion refusal to, to
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: understand how things work, the lack of curiosity about how
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: government worked, exactly the opposite of the way Elon Musk
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: portrays himself. It was very similar to what he did
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: to Twitter, but unlike it just being one company, this
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: was really the laws of the United States. So part
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: of the story of the attack on our institutions, on
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: the law, and on Congress in particular, which we'll continue with,
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: is really documented perfectly in this film.
• 8:03
  Speaker 3: And having Ashley St.
• 8:05
  Speaker 1: Clair talk about him personally in the film and then
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: listening to her afterwards, it's quite a testimonial as to
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: why the richest man in the world, arguably one of
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: the most powerful, is so dangerous at this moment.
• 8:18
  Speaker 4: Yeah, you know, I'm not going to pretend to have
• 8:20
  Speaker 4: my bias. I think the three worst presidents of America
• 8:23
  Speaker 4: in my lifetime have been Dick Cheney, Vladimir Putin, and
• 8:27
  Speaker 4: Elon Musk. But I mean, let me be fair, because
• 8:30
  Speaker 4: I don't hate Musk. I'm fighting for a better world
• 8:32
  Speaker 4: for his thousands of children, some of whom he's met.
• 8:35
  Speaker 4: But let's suppose I know the president can't abolish an
• 8:39
  Speaker 4: agency through executive action if Congress hasn't authorized the abolition.
• 8:43
  Speaker 4: Not that they care. But what if a president says,
• 8:45
  Speaker 4: in effect, this agency is wasteful, the work is unnecessary,
• 8:49
  Speaker 4: and I have a mandate to eliminate it? Does any
• 8:52
  Speaker 4: of that give a president legal authority to disregard the statutes?
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: Not when something is statutorily created. And that is certainly
• 9:00
  Speaker 1: what Trump thinks, that he's the president. As he says,
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: I have an Article 2. It gives me the power
• 9:05
  Speaker 1: to do anything I want. That's not how our system
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: is supposed to work. And I should say this USAID case,
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: there are cases brought by former employees who were fired
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: who claim they're still legally employees. And there's a second
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: case as well that ultimately I do believe very well
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: could vindicate exactly what I'm saying. But the reality of
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: what the law is and the blunt instrument with which
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: they destroy that agency, you know, it takes a long
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: time for the law to repair things.
• 9:34
  Speaker 3: So the short answer is absolutely not.
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: Not only can the president, just to illustrate the idea,
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: not only can the president not just destroy an agency
• 9:41
  Speaker 1: whole cloth that was created by Congress, But he also
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: can't refuse to spend the funds that are allocated by Congress.
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: And in fact, one of the main possibilities, I should say,
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: for Nixon's impeachment, I'll remind listeners and people watching this
• 9:57
  Speaker 1: that Nixon was never actually impeached by the full House
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: or removed by the Senate. He resigned under the threat
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: of impeachment. But certainly one of the articles of impeachment
• 10:06
  Speaker 1: that was considered had to do with his what's known
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: as impoundment. his refusal to spend money that was allocated
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: by Congress.
• 10:13
  Speaker 3: Think about that. If that was.
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: Possibly a reason for impeaching Richard Nixon, that he refused
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: to spend money, what Donald Trump did goes so far
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: beyond that, not just a refusal to spend money, but
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: destruction of the agency to whom the money was supposedly allocated.
• 10:28
  Speaker 4: Oh, I mean, Warren G. Harding looks like Gandhi next
• 10:31
  Speaker 4: to this guy. But let's bring it closer to home,
• 10:33
  Speaker 4: because three weeks before the midterms, Just this week, the
• 10:37
  Speaker 4: Trump administration has sent federal agents to raid the home
• 10:40
  Speaker 4: of Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, who is black, who is Muslim,
• 10:43
  Speaker 4: who is a naturalized American citizen, who has spent years
• 10:45
  Speaker 4: criticizing Trump and his immigration policies and his foreign wars. Now,
• 10:49
  Speaker 4: the DOJ confirmed they did have a judicially authorized warrant. OK, fine.
• 10:55
  Speaker 4: The scandal allegedly involves immigration paperwork her father handled when
• 11:00
  Speaker 4: she was a child and brought her over here. 40
• 11:03
  Speaker 4: years ago, and the White House has not publicly explained
• 11:05
  Speaker 4: the basis for the search. So welcome to Law & Order.
• 11:09
  Speaker 4: Daddy filled out the forms 40 years ago. Corey, I mean,
• 11:14
  Speaker 4: beyond the politics and how sloppy and desperate this looks,
• 11:18
  Speaker 4: what should Americans make of this from a constitutional perspective?
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: Well, in any of these stories, it's so important that
• 11:23
  Speaker 1: we zoom out and connect them, understand the details of
• 11:26
  Speaker 1: what's happening, but also understand the how it relates to
• 11:29
  Speaker 1: other things that this administration is doing. In Latin America,
• 11:32
  Speaker 1: sometimes presidents have tried through a variety of maneuvers to
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: dissolve Congress. The president isn't trying to do that because
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: he knows he couldn't get away with it.
• 11:41
  Speaker 3: So what is he doing instead?
• 11:43
  Speaker 1: He's trying to destroy its power in a variety of ways.
• 11:46
  Speaker 1: One way is the story we just talked about, the
• 11:48
  Speaker 1: basically dismantling of agencies even though they were created by Congress.
• 11:52
  Speaker 3: That is nothing less than an attack on Congress.
• 11:55
  Speaker 1: And now here's another thing, attacking his political enemies within
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: Congress as he sees them to be vulnerable. And I
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: think what he's doing here in particular isn't just any–
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: shutdown of an opponent. It's a shutdown of another branch
• 12:08
  Speaker 1: of government. And so when we talk about impeachment, as
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: we get to that topic and develop it, it is
• 12:13
  Speaker 1: centrally about Congress using its power of impeachment to protect itself.
• 12:19
  Speaker 1: And we can get into the details, but I think
• 12:21
  Speaker 1: what he's trying to do here is to use Homeland Security,
• 12:24
  Speaker 1: to use the FBI, to do nothing less than not
• 12:27
  Speaker 1: only kick her out of the country, but to strip
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: Representative Omar of her very citizenship by claiming that it
• 12:35
  Speaker 1: was fraudulent.
• 12:36
  Speaker 4: Oh yeah 40 years ago yeah and so i mean
• 12:39
  Speaker 4: obviously you're kinder than me professor because i take this
• 12:42
  Speaker 4: as a sign that they are terrified with the midterms
• 12:45
  Speaker 4: to go they're not allowing this president to campaign in
• 12:48
  Speaker 4: swing states they are sending him to deep red states
• 12:52
  Speaker 4: because they don't want him in swing states and they
• 12:55
  Speaker 4: are running scared of him i mean the fact that
• 12:56
  Speaker 4: the president and the vice president had to go to
• 12:58
  Speaker 4: nebraska like i I mean, that tells us how scared
• 13:03
  Speaker 4: they are. And this seems to me certainly not an
• 13:06
  Speaker 4: attempt to cast a wider net and get independents to
• 13:09
  Speaker 4: come over into the MAGA fold. This seems like a
• 13:11
  Speaker 4: desperate audition to get the racists that are part of
• 13:14
  Speaker 4: the base to still get excited about the midterm. See,
• 13:18
  Speaker 4: gas is $ 7 a gallon diesel, but I still hate
• 13:21
  Speaker 4: who you hate. I view this thing as really a
• 13:24
  Speaker 4: very messy and panic-driven operation. And I want to ask
• 13:27
  Speaker 4: you about the Fourth Amendment. What are the constitutional requirements
• 13:30
  Speaker 4: for the federal search of somebody's home? I mean, obviously,
• 13:33
  Speaker 4: if they steal boxes and boxes of classified documents from
• 13:36
  Speaker 4: the White House, you can get that warrant. But what
• 13:39
  Speaker 4: what considerations arise when the home belongs to a sitting
• 13:42
  Speaker 4: member of Congress?
• 13:44
  Speaker 1: Well, there are a lot of questions about this search
• 13:46
  Speaker 1: of her home. One is and, you know, for good reason.
• 13:50
  Speaker 3: The FBI has.
• 13:52
  Speaker 1: Long had a policy of within 60 days of an
• 13:54
  Speaker 1: election trying to not interfere. Now, it is true, and
• 13:58
  Speaker 1: the administration is going to bring this up, that in
• 14:01
  Speaker 1: the Jack Smith case, although Donald Trump protested, we're too
• 14:04
  Speaker 1: close to an election, they moved in anyway. The argument there,
• 14:07
  Speaker 1: this is in the Mar-a-Lago case in particular, was that
• 14:10
  Speaker 1: they were trying to preserve the evidence that Donald Trump
• 14:13
  Speaker 1: had shown an indication that he would destroy of files
• 14:16
  Speaker 1: that he had stole. Is there any similar evidence instance
• 14:20
  Speaker 1: here where there's a danger of something being lost, you know,
• 14:23
  Speaker 1: that somehow she has her dad's files that she's threatening
• 14:26
  Speaker 1: to destroy. There's no indication of that. So, you know,
• 14:29
  Speaker 1: they're breaking this norm that's supposed to govern the FBI. Well,
• 14:32
  Speaker 1: the problem with norms, as we've seen, is they're very
• 14:35
  Speaker 1: hard to enforce. And so I'm not sure that there's
• 14:38
  Speaker 1: a Fourth Amendment violation, that this was an unreasonable search
• 14:41
  Speaker 1: and seizure. It could very well be that they went
• 14:44
  Speaker 1: through all the necessary procedures, because after all, what they're
• 14:47
  Speaker 1: doing is looking for loopholes in the law. where they
• 14:50
  Speaker 1: can use what otherwise would be a normal legal process,
• 14:54
  Speaker 1: for instance, looking for fraud in a naturalization application.
• 14:58
  Speaker 4: A 40-year-old naturalization application.
• 15:00
  Speaker 1: Yeah, in order to do something that is obviously politically
• 15:03
  Speaker 1: motivated and trying to shut down an opponent in Congress
• 15:07
  Speaker 1: and a very effective one. And I just have to say, too,
• 15:10
  Speaker 1: to build on what you were saying before of what's
• 15:12
  Speaker 1: going on here, you know, a lot of his rallies
• 15:14
  Speaker 1: are not attracting.
• 15:15
  Speaker 3: People the way they were before.
• 15:16
  Speaker 1: And that's a direct indication to him, maybe as much
• 15:20
  Speaker 1: or more so than the polls, that he's got to
• 15:22
  Speaker 1: do something. So is he going to apologize for attacking
• 15:25
  Speaker 1: democracy and start, you know, saying, well, I really made
• 15:28
  Speaker 1: a mistake with this whole Doge thing and with my
• 15:30
  Speaker 1: attack on Comey for 86-47, something that obviously was not
• 15:35
  Speaker 1: a threat, although he's got the Department of Justice trying
• 15:37
  Speaker 1: to to prosecute him for what is obviously a political
• 15:41
  Speaker 1: statement about removing the president. No, he's going to double
• 15:43
  Speaker 1: down and increase rather than decrease the attack on democracy.
• 15:48
  Speaker 1: So on the one hand, we should take solace in
• 15:50
  Speaker 1: the fact that people are getting sick of him and
• 15:52
  Speaker 1: that he's losing in some ways. On the other hand,
• 15:54
  Speaker 1: you know, wannabe dictators get more dangerous when they see
• 15:58
  Speaker 1: their power slipping.
• 15:59
  Speaker 3: And that's part of what's going on here.
• 16:01
  Speaker 4: I want to remind everyone that Donald Trump in the
• 16:02
  Speaker 4: first term told Ilhan Omar and three other congresswomen of
• 16:06
  Speaker 4: color to go back to where you came from. In
• 16:09
  Speaker 4: this country, if you were an unpaid intern at a
• 16:12
  Speaker 4: corporation and told four women employees of color to go
• 16:15
  Speaker 4: back where you came from, you'd be fired. Because here
• 16:18
  Speaker 4: in the U.S., we hold unpaid interns to a higher
• 16:21
  Speaker 4: standard than the president of the United States. Professor, I
• 16:24
  Speaker 4: need to ask you a few questions as well about
• 16:26
  Speaker 4: Pete Hegseth and whether he's going to be impeached. And
• 16:29
  Speaker 4: I'd like to ask a bit about how we're making
• 16:32
  Speaker 4: America like ISIS again with televised executions. Please stay with
• 16:36
  Speaker 4: us back in a moment on The Oath in the Office.
• 16:41
  Speaker 1: This episode is brought to you by the Freedom From
• 16:43
  Speaker 1: Religion Foundation. We talk every week about the oath, the
• 16:46
  Speaker 1: promise to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. So here's
• 16:50
  Speaker 1: the church state version of that question. When public officials
• 16:54
  Speaker 1: take that oath, are they promising to protect everyone's freedom
• 16:57
  Speaker 1: of conscience or to use government power to promote their
• 17:01
  Speaker 1: own religion? Because as students head back to school, that
• 17:04
  Speaker 1: question is not abstract. Public schools serve children from Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, agnostic,
• 17:12
  Speaker 1: and many other families. No student should be made to
• 17:16
  Speaker 1: feel like they belong less because they don't share the
• 17:18
  Speaker 1: government's preferred religious message. The First Amendment is not a
• 17:22
  Speaker 1: bridge to government-backed religion. It is a limit on government power.
• 17:27
  Speaker 1: The Freedom from Religion Foundation works to keep church and
• 17:30
  Speaker 1: state separate because freedom of conscience means the right to believe, question, doubt,
• 17:36
  Speaker 1: or not believe at all. FFRF also speaks directly for freethinkers, atheists, agnostics, humanists,
• 17:44
  Speaker 1: and non-religious Americans who are too often erased from the story.
• 17:48
  Speaker 1: Learn more at That's ffrf.us slash office. That's ffrf.us slash o-f-f-i-c-e.
• 18:05
  Speaker 4: Welcome back to The Oath in the Office. I'm John Fuglesang,
• 18:08
  Speaker 4: along with the great Professor Corey Brettschneider. Corey, let's talk
• 18:11
  Speaker 4: about the case against Pete Hexeth. Democrats are really talking
• 18:15
  Speaker 4: about impeaching this guy as soon as the midterms are over.
• 18:18
  Speaker 4: I kind of feel like he's probably going to get
• 18:20
  Speaker 4: fired if Trump needs to distraction before then. But let
• 18:24
  Speaker 4: me ask, from a constitutional perspective, we haven't really seen this.
• 18:27
  Speaker 4: What would make a cabinet secretary's conduct an impeachable offense?
• 18:32
  Speaker 1: Well, I think that, you know, let's start with what
• 18:35
  Speaker 1: the standard is. And I talked a lot about Impeachment,
• 18:38
  Speaker 1: I was on CNN and MSNOW all the time on
• 18:41
  Speaker 1: your show talking about impeachment as impeachment expert, Corey Bretschneider. Well,
• 18:45
  Speaker 1: it's time to come back to that because we are
• 18:47
  Speaker 1: going to need impeachment experts, both in regard to Hegseth,
• 18:50
  Speaker 1: who the Democratic Party, the leadership in particular, is suggesting
• 18:54
  Speaker 1: maybe should be the first target. And they are not
• 18:57
  Speaker 1: talking about targeting Donald Trump right now. Talk to Representative
• 19:01
  Speaker 1: Green about that. They've decided strategically this makes sense.
• 19:04
  Speaker 4: Although I'm pretty sure Al Green is targeting Donald Trump 24-7.
• 19:07
  Speaker 3: He certainly is.
• 19:08
  Speaker 1: And that's one of the reasons why I'm so eager
• 19:10
  Speaker 1: to talk to him. You know, let's just lay out,
• 19:14
  Speaker 1: I think, what they're thinking, which is that impeachment of
• 19:16
  Speaker 1: the president might play in a bad way.
• 19:19
  Speaker 3: It's purely strategic.
• 19:21
  Speaker 1: But Hegseth, in his high crimes and misdemeanors, the standard
• 19:24
  Speaker 1: for impeachment of a president and for a cabinet secretary
• 19:28
  Speaker 1: is the same. It's an obvious place to look. First
• 19:31
  Speaker 1: of all, what does high crimes and misdemeanors mean? That
• 19:34
  Speaker 1: idea sometimes is confused with a crime crime. It's like
• 19:39
  Speaker 1: assaulting somebody. But what it actually means is actions that
• 19:42
  Speaker 1: undermine the basic ideas of the rule of law, the
• 19:45
  Speaker 1: basic ideas of democracy. And so let's take his attack
• 19:49
  Speaker 1: on these socialists. drug brotes, which very well could be
• 19:52
  Speaker 1: either fishermen or migrants. And there was no due process
• 19:56
  Speaker 1: in this. And he is not only blowing them up,
• 19:59
  Speaker 1: but in one case, and we've talked about this on
• 20:01
  Speaker 1: the show before, engaged in a kind of in what's
• 20:03
  Speaker 1: known as a double tap where the boat was disabled.
• 20:07
  Speaker 3: And yet he then sank it anyway with.
• 20:10
  Speaker 4: A second attack. Men were clinging to wreckage for life.
• 20:13
  Speaker 3: Not knowing who was on it.
• 20:15
  Speaker 4: I'd also point out, Professor, it was last year, October 16th,
• 20:19
  Speaker 4: when they destroyed another fishing boat and there were two survivors.
• 20:23
  Speaker 4: And those two survivors were taken aboard a U.S. Navy
• 20:25
  Speaker 4: vessel and eventually returned to their home countries. Which means
• 20:29
  Speaker 4: either we know we're killing innocent people or they are
• 20:32
  Speaker 4: all narco-terrorists and we're letting them go. But this is
• 20:36
  Speaker 4: exactly where Pete Hexeth is at. And is the standard
• 20:40
  Speaker 4: fundamentally different for a cabinet secretary than for a president
• 20:43
  Speaker 4: when it comes to impeachment for high crimes?
• 20:45
  Speaker 3: It isn't. And that really brings me to my main point.
• 20:48
  Speaker 1: I think also the high crime and misdemeanor is the
• 20:51
  Speaker 1: sole act of war against Iran without congressional authorization. And
• 20:55
  Speaker 1: as I've said a couple of times, and we'll keep
• 20:57
  Speaker 1: talking about this, part of the point of impeachment is
• 20:59
  Speaker 1: it's a power given to Congress partly to protect itself
• 21:03
  Speaker 1: against a president.
• 21:04
  Speaker 3: Who would illegally destroy its power.
• 21:07
  Speaker 1: And so the Iran war itself strikes me as another
• 21:10
  Speaker 1: instance of a high crime and misdemeanor.
• 21:12
  Speaker 3: Now, here's where I get a little skeptical.
• 21:15
  Speaker 1: I see the strategy, but there's a long tradition in
• 21:18
  Speaker 1: impeachment that goes back before the founding of the United States.
• 21:21
  Speaker 3: It goes back to England, where the idea was the
• 21:25
  Speaker 3: king could do no wrong.
• 21:26
  Speaker 1: You couldn't impeach a king. That would be treason. But
• 21:29
  Speaker 1: how could you get control in Parliament? How could Parliament
• 21:33
  Speaker 1: get control in the name of the people against a
• 21:36
  Speaker 1: king who was going off the rails? Well, you could
• 21:38
  Speaker 1: impeach the king's officers. And the idea was the king
• 21:42
  Speaker 1: could do no wrong, but the officers could do wrong.
• 21:45
  Speaker 1: And I worry this is sort of a rehash of that,
• 21:48
  Speaker 1: pretending that really it's Hegseth that's doing the damage here
• 21:51
  Speaker 1: when we know it's the president. So I'm a little sympathetic,
• 21:55
  Speaker 1: more than a little sympathetic, to Representative Green's way of
• 21:57
  Speaker 1: doing it, which is Let's go to the person actually responsible.
• 22:01
  Speaker 1: I don't object to doing impeachment simultaneously with Hegseth. I
• 22:04
  Speaker 1: think we would learn a lot, but I don't want
• 22:07
  Speaker 1: that in any way to be a replacement for impeaching
• 22:10
  Speaker 1: Donald Trump himself.
• 22:11
  Speaker 4: I get that. And I have other people I'd rather
• 22:13
  Speaker 4: see impeached because I think Hegseth's going to get fired.
• 22:15
  Speaker 4: But I mean, to that point, just couldn't a focused
• 22:18
  Speaker 4: case against Hegseth be a way to just reestablish the
• 22:23
  Speaker 4: principle that executive officials are accountable to Congress, regardless of party?
• 22:28
  Speaker 3: I think that's right.
• 22:29
  Speaker 1: Like, you know, once we and, you know, I would
• 22:31
  Speaker 1: add Todd Blanche after that last discussion when it comes
• 22:34
  Speaker 1: to the prosecution of Comey and others and the potential
• 22:38
  Speaker 1: Tom Homan and the attack on Representative Omar.
• 22:41
  Speaker 3: You know, all of these.
• 22:42
  Speaker 1: People are certainly candidates for an impeachment that focused on
• 22:46
  Speaker 1: their high crimes and misdemeanors. And if the idea, as
• 22:49
  Speaker 1: often happens in criminal law, and this is in a
• 22:51
  Speaker 1: criminal case, after all, is to build a case against
• 22:54
  Speaker 1: the mafia boss, as we talked to Barbara McQuaid about
• 22:57
  Speaker 1: the mafia boss in this case being Donald Trump, then
• 23:00
  Speaker 1: that might be a sensible way to do it.
• 23:02
  Speaker 4: OK, so let me then ask you about the million
• 23:05
  Speaker 4: dollar question this week, which is that Pete Hexeth, this
• 23:09
  Speaker 4: Fox News weekend guy, has decided Christian America needs to
• 23:12
  Speaker 4: rediscover the spiritual joys of the firing squad. Apparently, according
• 23:17
  Speaker 4: to Hegseth, the first official killing of a prisoner by
• 23:20
  Speaker 4: the U.S. military in 65 years.
• 23:22
  Speaker 3: That's not enough.
• 23:23
  Speaker 4: It's got to be a show. It's got to be
• 23:24
  Speaker 4: streamed to a live audience because Pete Hegseth says people
• 23:28
  Speaker 4: need to understand there's serious consequences for these types of things.
• 23:32
  Speaker 4: I think most of us realize it's not legal to
• 23:34
  Speaker 4: kill 13 soldiers. And there is no one saying that
• 23:37
  Speaker 4: Major Hassan is not a monster. But I remember Cory
• 23:40
  Speaker 4: Donald Trump in his State of the Union address just
• 23:43
  Speaker 4: back last January saying, attacking Iran for having public executions
• 23:47
  Speaker 4: and bragging that he helped prevent Iranian public executions. As
• 23:51
  Speaker 4: of now, I think the only countries on Earth that
• 23:54
  Speaker 4: will have public executions that we know of are Iran,
• 23:58
  Speaker 4: Taliban-led Afghanistan, and the U.S.
• 24:01
  Speaker 2: That's it.
• 24:02
  Speaker 4: We probably North Korea, but we don't know. And Saudi
• 24:05
  Speaker 4: Arabia stopped having public executions in 2019. So we're like
• 24:09
  Speaker 4: to the right of Prince Bonesaw. Corey, I don't think
• 24:12
  Speaker 4: this is ever going to really happen, but what are
• 24:14
  Speaker 4: the legal issues at play here?
• 24:17
  Speaker 1: Well, I think the theme here is that Pete Hegseth
• 24:20
  Speaker 1: seems drawn to the destruction of international law. He's determined
• 24:25
  Speaker 1: to violate it. That's true in the drug boats, so-called
• 24:28
  Speaker 1: drug boats cases that we were talking about in the
• 24:32
  Speaker 1: initiation of war illegally. And it's true here, too, that
• 24:36
  Speaker 1: there is a standard, I think, increasingly in international law
• 24:39
  Speaker 1: that says it's essentially a human rights violation to advertise
• 24:43
  Speaker 1: your cruelty by publicizing executions. Now, in the United States,
• 24:47
  Speaker 1: in some cases, the death penalty is legal. But the
• 24:50
  Speaker 1: idea of televising it, I think, too, you know, often
• 24:53
  Speaker 1: we use the language of rights, but here I switch
• 24:55
  Speaker 1: the way that we talk about it just to... language
• 24:58
  Speaker 1: of humanity and cruelty and dignity. And a dignified society
• 25:02
  Speaker 1: doesn't celebrate, even if you're going to have the death penalty,
• 25:04
  Speaker 1: which I, of course, oppose, which I think itself is
• 25:07
  Speaker 1: a human rights violation. The idea that you're going to
• 25:10
  Speaker 1: televise it, to spread the violence throughout the culture, to
• 25:14
  Speaker 1: spread the intimidation, that puts us in some very bad company,
• 25:18
  Speaker 1: as you suggested. And once again, puts us at odds
• 25:21
  Speaker 1: with the world. And one of the themes here, too,
• 25:24
  Speaker 1: and this goes back to everything that Donald Trump is doing,
• 25:27
  Speaker 1: including Elon Musk and his destruction of USAID, is hurting
• 25:31
  Speaker 1: our standing in the world. How can America claim in
• 25:34
  Speaker 1: any way to lead the way on human rights, to
• 25:37
  Speaker 1: oppose human rights abuses abroad, supposedly the basis of our
• 25:40
  Speaker 1: international actions, when we are so badly violating them at home?
• 25:45
  Speaker 1: And that, I think I worry, isn't just going to
• 25:47
  Speaker 1: be a matter of Donald Trump, that it's something that
• 25:50
  Speaker 1: even if Trump eventually is gone, which I think he
• 25:54
  Speaker 1: will be, of course, in a couple of years. And
• 25:56
  Speaker 1: even if the Republicans lose the election, it's not going
• 25:59
  Speaker 1: to be easy to build our standing in the world
• 26:01
  Speaker 1: because the thought is this could happen again.
• 26:03
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 26:04
  Speaker 4: I mean, and let's remember, these are the pro-life people, Corey.
• 26:07
  Speaker 4: All life is sacred, but some life is more sacred
• 26:10
  Speaker 4: than another. I mean, what is our government trying to accomplish,
• 26:13
  Speaker 4: you think, by turning the killing of this man into
• 26:15
  Speaker 4: public entertainment? Is it justice or revenge or deterrence or
• 26:20
  Speaker 4: just a TikTok video about our awesome power, bro? I mean,
• 26:25
  Speaker 4: you know, these are the guys who keep boasting about
• 26:27
  Speaker 4: how Christian they are. And this is really against everything
• 26:30
  Speaker 4: the character of Christ in the book ever talked about.
• 26:33
  Speaker 4: But I've heard military law experts are already saying that
• 26:37
  Speaker 4: Major Hassan could file a habeas petition in civilian court,
• 26:42
  Speaker 4: which could then delay his death until well after Trump
• 26:45
  Speaker 4: leaves office or a few months until Hegseth is fired.
• 26:49
  Speaker 4: Any insight on that, Corey?
• 26:51
  Speaker 3: I'm not sure what his resources are. That's what worries me.
• 26:54
  Speaker 1: I mean, one of the first things that people are
• 26:56
  Speaker 1: talking about, military lawyers are internal codes to the military
• 27:00
  Speaker 1: that prohibit public executions. But as the president is commander
• 27:03
  Speaker 1: in chief, and this was true in the case of
• 27:06
  Speaker 1: the Department of Justice, and we just see this again
• 27:08
  Speaker 1: and again, these regulations can be rewritten from within the
• 27:12
  Speaker 1: executive branch. Is there a constitutional argument, rid of habeas
• 27:16
  Speaker 1: corpus as one way of trying to claim, for instance,
• 27:20
  Speaker 1: actual innocence as a basis for habeas petitions?
• 27:24
  Speaker 2: Yes.
• 27:24
  Speaker 1: I'm not sure that they're going to work here and
• 27:26
  Speaker 1: that he'll get relief in that way from a civilian court.
• 27:28
  Speaker 1: There is a prohibition still on cruel and unusual punishment.
• 27:32
  Speaker 1: And I guess one question that I haven't seen the
• 27:35
  Speaker 1: court address that maybe we could discuss see pushed to
• 27:37
  Speaker 1: the Supreme Court is the question of not whether the
• 27:40
  Speaker 1: death penalty is unconstitutional. It was struck down at one point,
• 27:43
  Speaker 1: and then in the 1970s in Furman v.
• 27:46
  Speaker 3: Georgia, and then in Gregg v. Georgia put back.
• 27:49
  Speaker 1: But what I haven't seen the court address, as far
• 27:51
  Speaker 1: as I know, is the question of whether a public
• 27:53
  Speaker 1: execution is a kind of cruelty that violates the Eighth Amendment.
• 27:57
  Speaker 3: So that's something to look for.
• 27:58
  Speaker 4: I'm sure Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito would be outraged.
• 28:06
  Speaker 4: Congressman Al Green. I'm very excited for this on The
• 28:08
  Speaker 4: Oath and the Office. Welcome back to The Oath and
• 28:21
  Speaker 4: the Office podcast. I'm John Fugelsang. Professor Brett Schneider, I
• 28:25
  Speaker 4: got to say, we have some wonderful guests, some tremendous
• 28:28
  Speaker 4: statesmen and stateswomen on this show. But this next gentleman
• 28:31
  Speaker 4: is a real rock star, and he's someone who really
• 28:33
  Speaker 4: understands the power of of resistance and reform and that
• 28:38
  Speaker 4: impeachment can be a way to put the other guy
• 28:40
  Speaker 4: on defense.
• 28:42
  Speaker 3: Absolutely, John.
• 28:43
  Speaker 1: And so I'll just introduce it really is an honor
• 28:46
  Speaker 1: to introduce Congressman Al Green, who has represented the ninth
• 28:51
  Speaker 1: congressional district in Texas since 2005. He's a lawyer, a
• 28:55
  Speaker 1: longtime civil rights advocate. He earned his law degree from
• 28:58
  Speaker 1: Texas Southern University's Thurgood Marshall School of Law. And I
• 29:02
  Speaker 1: should mention, too, that he led the Houston branch of
• 29:05
  Speaker 1: the NAACP for nearly a decade. In Congress, of course,
• 29:09
  Speaker 1: he's worked on fair housing, economic opportunity. And one of
• 29:13
  Speaker 1: the reasons why we've been so eager to talk to him,
• 29:16
  Speaker 1: and we've set some of this up earlier in the show,
• 29:18
  Speaker 1: is that he has absolutely been at the forefront of
• 29:20
  Speaker 1: the effort to impeach Donald Trump and really of insisting
• 29:24
  Speaker 1: that Congress use and protect its constitutional authority in to
• 29:28
  Speaker 1: hold the president accountable. Congressman Green, welcome to The Oath
• 29:32
  Speaker 1: in the Office.
• 29:34
  Speaker 2: Well, thank you. It's my honor to be with you
• 29:36
  Speaker 2: and I look forward to the interview. Thank you. Thank you, sir.
• 29:39
  Speaker 3: Great.
• 29:39
  Speaker 1: I mean, if you don't mind, we'll just jump right
• 29:41
  Speaker 1: into it. We've been talking about certainly the attack on
• 29:45
  Speaker 1: Congresswoman Omar by this president and by his cronies in Homeland.
• 29:50
  Speaker 3: Security and elsewhere.
• 29:52
  Speaker 1: His attempt to shut down political opponents. But we've also
• 29:56
  Speaker 1: talked about how the House leadership has seemed to focus
• 29:59
  Speaker 1: on going after Pete Hegseth initially rather than the president directly.
• 30:04
  Speaker 1: And I take it that that's not an approach that
• 30:06
  Speaker 1: you necessarily share, that at least my understanding is that
• 30:09
  Speaker 1: you've shown a willingness to go directly after Donald Trump.
• 30:12
  Speaker 3: So talk to me about that.
• 30:13
  Speaker 1: Why is it so important that we get an impeachment
• 30:16
  Speaker 1: of the president, not just cabinet secretaries on the agenda?
• 30:20
  Speaker 2: Well, thank you very much. I have indicated my support
• 30:23
  Speaker 2: for the Hexeth impeachment as well. I believe that that
• 30:27
  Speaker 2: merits the attention of the Congress. And I do regret
• 30:31
  Speaker 2: that the Speaker adjourned without allowing those articles of impeachment
• 30:37
  Speaker 2: to be brought to the attention of the Congress, because
• 30:40
  Speaker 2: I think that they would have received quite a bit
• 30:42
  Speaker 2: of support. My belief is that they would have exceeded
• 30:45
  Speaker 2: the support that we received on our last articles of impeachment. Now,
• 30:49
  Speaker 2: why have I chosen to move against the president? Because
• 30:53
  Speaker 2: the president has committed impeachable offenses. And we understand that
• 30:58
  Speaker 2: an impeachable offense doesn't have to be something that's codified.
• 31:01
  Speaker 2: It doesn't have to be a breach of a law
• 31:04
  Speaker 2: that is in codification. No, it can be a breach
• 31:08
  Speaker 2: of public trust. And if you would kindly, those of
• 31:12
  Speaker 2: you who may not be aware, read Article 65 of
• 31:16
  Speaker 2: the Federalist Papers, Federalist 65. These are essays, 85 essays.
• 31:23
  Speaker 2: And 65 is written by Alexander Hamilton, the first treasurer
• 31:27
  Speaker 2: of the United States. Then you had John Jay, who
• 31:31
  Speaker 2: was the first Chief Justice. He contributed the fewest number
• 31:35
  Speaker 2: of essays, I believe. And of course, you had James Madison.
• 31:39
  Speaker 2: He contributed as well. Hamilton did about 51 of these,
• 31:42
  Speaker 2: if I'm correct. Now, without getting into all of that,
• 31:46
  Speaker 2: the point is the Federalist Papers gave us in Federalist 65...
• 31:51
  Speaker 2: pretty much the definition of what we need to do
• 31:54
  Speaker 2: to impeach a president and why. It has to do
• 31:56
  Speaker 2: with public trust and it has to do with public men,
• 32:00
  Speaker 2: but people who are in public spaces at the federal
• 32:03
  Speaker 2: level for us with the Constitution, the US Constitution. And
• 32:07
  Speaker 2: if you breach this public trust, you're subject to impeachment,
• 32:11
  Speaker 2: which is not a punishment, but simply a removal from office.
• 32:16
  Speaker 2: That's what it's all about, removing from office for the
• 32:20
  Speaker 2: deed that has been defined as a breach of public trust.
• 32:25
  Speaker 2: It's also important to know this, if I may, just
• 32:27
  Speaker 2: so that people will understand. It is not appealable. You
• 32:31
  Speaker 2: cannot appeal. There is no standard charge given to the
• 32:36
  Speaker 2: members of Congress by way of some definition of a
• 32:40
  Speaker 2: burden of proof. Does not exist. And too often, constitutional
• 32:45
  Speaker 2: scholars will attribute more to what is required to impeach
• 32:50
  Speaker 2: than what is actually required. Because if you read Article
• 32:54
  Speaker 2: 10 of the Articles of Impeachment against Andrew Johnson in 1868,
• 32:57
  Speaker 2: in Article 10, he was impeached for criticizing Congress. Literally,
• 33:05
  Speaker 2: for bad-mouthing, as we would say it in my hood.
• 33:08
  Speaker 2: He was saying ugly things about Congress, and they impeached him.
• 33:11
  Speaker 2: And by the way, all articles of impeachment don't have
• 33:14
  Speaker 2: to be voted on. In those articles against Andrew Johnson,
• 33:18
  Speaker 2: only three were voted on. I believe it was article
• 33:22
  Speaker 2: maybe 11, 1, and 2. I think those were the
• 33:25
  Speaker 2: three voted on and the others were not voted on
• 33:29
  Speaker 2: because once they saw that they could not get justice
• 33:31
  Speaker 2: with the first three that they voted on, the adjourned
• 33:34
  Speaker 2: signee died. So with that understanding and the understanding that
• 33:39
  Speaker 2: Gerald Ford probably got it right when he said impeachment
• 33:43
  Speaker 2: is whatever Congress says it is. These were his exact words,
• 33:46
  Speaker 2: but this is what his words portend. whatever Congress says
• 33:51
  Speaker 2: it is on a given day at a given time.
• 33:54
  Speaker 2: That's what it is. Nobody can dispute that once it's done.
• 33:58
  Speaker 2: And there is no clear and convincing evidence standard, no
• 34:01
  Speaker 2: guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, no preponderance of the evidence.
• 34:05
  Speaker 2: Congress people never have to say why they voted to impeach.
• 34:08
  Speaker 3: That's right.
• 34:09
  Speaker 2: That's right. Now, having said all of that, why have
• 34:12
  Speaker 2: I gone forward? Because the president is destroying destroying the
• 34:17
  Speaker 2: Constitution itself. Thank you. If we allow this man to continue,
• 34:22
  Speaker 2: the Constitution will be meaningless. If we allow a president
• 34:26
  Speaker 2: to defy court orders regularly with impunity because he assumes
• 34:31
  Speaker 2: he has some sort of absolute immunity, the Constitution will
• 34:35
  Speaker 2: become meaningless. If we allow the president to condone and
• 34:40
  Speaker 2: support the killing of people, four of them, We saw
• 34:44
  Speaker 2: what happened to Alex Pretty. There has been no transparency
• 34:48
  Speaker 2: provided the local constabulary so that if they choose to investigate,
• 34:52
  Speaker 2: they can do so. The president is preventing them from
• 34:56
  Speaker 2: looking into this by and through his agents. over at
• 35:00
  Speaker 2: ICE and CBP. So he prevents them from looking into it.
• 35:04
  Speaker 2: And he does this because he knows that if there
• 35:08
  Speaker 2: is an indictment and a conviction at the federal level,
• 35:11
  Speaker 2: he can do for them, whoever's indicted for these killings,
• 35:15
  Speaker 2: he can do for them what he did for the
• 35:18
  Speaker 2: people who assaulted the Citadel of Democracy, the capital of
• 35:22
  Speaker 2: the United States of America. He gave them all relief
• 35:25
  Speaker 2: and he'll do the same thing for these ICE and
• 35:28
  Speaker 2: CBP officers. So we have to understand that there is
• 35:32
  Speaker 2: a cover-up And I don't know how to say it
• 35:35
  Speaker 2: other than a cover-up simply means that you're hiding something
• 35:39
  Speaker 2: and you're hiding it because it may be something harmful.
• 35:42
  Speaker 2: That's the simplest definition of a cover-up. You don't have
• 35:45
  Speaker 2: to have some scheme that runs deeply into some sort
• 35:49
  Speaker 2: of hidden place and never to be found. No, the
• 35:52
  Speaker 2: fact that we know about it doesn't mean that it
• 35:54
  Speaker 2: doesn't negate the fact that it's a cover-up. There is
• 35:57
  Speaker 2: a cover-up. He's preventing information from coming forward by and
• 36:01
  Speaker 2: through his agents. And his agents are guilty of these
• 36:05
  Speaker 2: killings that have not been justified, unjustified killings of people.
• 36:09
  Speaker 2: I know that was a long answer, but I know
• 36:13
  Speaker 2: that was.
• 36:13
  Speaker 3: One we needed to hear. And it also.
• 36:16
  Speaker 1: It also fits extremely well with the way we've been
• 36:19
  Speaker 1: talking about impeachment, certainly as a kind of defense of democracy,
• 36:23
  Speaker 1: defense of Congress's power, which he's attacked. And exactly as
• 36:28
  Speaker 1: you say, there is no requirement in the idea of
• 36:31
  Speaker 1: a high crime and misdemeanor of a criminal charge beyond
• 36:34
  Speaker 1: a reasonable doubt.
• 36:35
  Speaker 3: It is up to Congress as.
• 36:37
  Speaker 1: An obligation to defend democracy, exactly as you've said. And
• 36:42
  Speaker 1: I love, too, I should say, too, the Andrew Johnson parallel,
• 36:46
  Speaker 1: because Often, you know, history, especially those who have sought
• 36:51
  Speaker 1: to really scrub the racism of the 19th century, have
• 36:55
  Speaker 1: not seen how the Andrew Johnson impeachment was really about
• 37:00
  Speaker 1: defending civil rights and defending against a president who, as
• 37:03
  Speaker 1: you say, not just in speeches attack Congress, but just
• 37:07
  Speaker 1: to elaborate, really threatened violence against members of Congress.
• 37:11
  Speaker 3: And that is not.
• 37:12
  Speaker 1: So far from the attempted legal violence that this president
• 37:16
  Speaker 1: has showed just this week against Representative Omar, possibly even
• 37:20
  Speaker 1: threatening her citizenship. So help us to, I mean, just
• 37:24
  Speaker 1: as a follow-up and with this heated agreement that we're in,
• 37:28
  Speaker 1: talk to me about how we would write the articles
• 37:32
  Speaker 1: of impeachment. One thing that interests me about the Andrew
• 37:34
  Speaker 1: Johnson impeachment is Although that was there, that article about
• 37:38
  Speaker 1: Congress attacking, really about the president, Johnson, Andrew Johnson, threatening
• 37:43
  Speaker 1: members of Congress, it got lost in a lot of
• 37:46
  Speaker 1: legalese about firing the Secretary of War. And so this time,
• 37:50
  Speaker 1: it strikes me as extremely important that we bring to
• 37:53
  Speaker 1: the forefront issues that are both about defending democracy and
• 37:56
  Speaker 1: that the American people can see so clearly are.
• 37:59
  Speaker 3: Threats to democracy.
• 38:00
  Speaker 1: So I take it one issue is certainly ICE and
• 38:04
  Speaker 1: the killings that we've seen from them and the violence
• 38:07
  Speaker 1: done by ICE against our citizens, the attack on a
• 38:11
  Speaker 1: car even in New York City with a child in it.
• 38:14
  Speaker 3: The way they've run rampant. I mean, what else would
• 38:16
  Speaker 3: you like to see?
• 38:18
  Speaker 1: And do you want to see a broad slate of
• 38:20
  Speaker 1: articles of impeachment or a narrow one? Talk to us
• 38:23
  Speaker 1: about what the other high crimes and misdemeanors, as the
• 38:25
  Speaker 1: Constitution says, are.
• 38:27
  Speaker 2: Well, first, let me applaud you for being eminently correct
• 38:30
  Speaker 2: about the Secretary of War. There was an effort in
• 38:33
  Speaker 2: those articles related to him. And you're right about the others.
• 38:38
  Speaker 2: But I would just add this. Those people at that
• 38:41
  Speaker 2: time were closer to the persons who were the authors
• 38:47
  Speaker 2: of the Federalist Papers than we are. So you have
• 38:50
  Speaker 2: to assume that they had a pretty good understanding of
• 38:53
  Speaker 2: what it was all about, just because of proximity. But
• 38:56
  Speaker 2: given that, and moving on to articles, I think that
• 38:59
  Speaker 2: what is being done with reference to the Secretary of
• 39:04
  Speaker 2: defense now. I say defense, but Secretary of War now.
• 39:08
  Speaker 2: And I don't agree with that terminology, by the way.
• 39:10
  Speaker 2: Not at all. I think that that was a terrible
• 39:13
  Speaker 2: thing for the Secretary to do, along with the President.
• 39:16
  Speaker 2: Nothing is done without his permission. But I do think
• 39:19
  Speaker 2: that those articles are worthy of review and vote, because
• 39:24
  Speaker 2: the President did take us to war without conferring with Congress. Correct.
• 39:29
  Speaker 2: And One would assume that in this country, we don't
• 39:33
  Speaker 2: want any one person to take the entire country to
• 39:37
  Speaker 2: war without at least conferring with the Congress, which has
• 39:41
  Speaker 2: the power to declare war. And not only did he
• 39:45
  Speaker 2: take us to war, but he's kept us there. We
• 39:48
  Speaker 2: are still at war, notwithstanding anything that is said. We
• 39:52
  Speaker 2: have our military there with a blockade. We have continued
• 39:57
  Speaker 2: to have our missiles shot into another country's space. This
• 40:02
  Speaker 2: is war. And what we're doing now is minimizing what
• 40:07
  Speaker 2: is actually a war situation. And preventing people from understanding
• 40:14
  Speaker 2: that the Congress does have the power to declare war
• 40:17
  Speaker 2: and that the Congress should protect the authority that it
• 40:20
  Speaker 2: has so that we maintain a balance of power. If
• 40:23
  Speaker 2: we don't do this, the president not only is going
• 40:26
  Speaker 2: to become an authoritarian president, he is authoritarian. and authority
• 40:31
  Speaker 2: of the president. Sometimes you slip into these places and
• 40:35
  Speaker 2: you don't know that you're there, but we are already
• 40:38
  Speaker 2: there when the president can do this, take the country
• 40:41
  Speaker 2: to war. Now, when he can also defy federal judges,
• 40:46
  Speaker 2: most recent cases I can recall is with the trees
• 40:49
  Speaker 2: that he has decided they're going to just cut trees
• 40:52
  Speaker 2: and the judges said, no, listen, now you're going to
• 40:55
  Speaker 2: have to bring me some more information if you're going
• 40:57
  Speaker 2: to go beyond a certain number. Well, they've done it.
• 41:00
  Speaker 2: And they do this regularly. And then they appeal to
• 41:03
  Speaker 2: the next judge. And the next, until they get to
• 41:07
  Speaker 2: the Supreme Court, and there is a desire to have
• 41:09
  Speaker 2: the Supreme Court bail them out. If the Supreme Court
• 41:11
  Speaker 2: doesn't bail out, someone has lost an inordinate amount of
• 41:14
  Speaker 2: money defending to take the case to the Supreme Court.
• 41:17
  Speaker 2: So the victory for the president many times is just
• 41:21
  Speaker 2: the suffering that he'll put you through to prove that
• 41:24
  Speaker 2: you are right. So- I do believe that what he's
• 41:28
  Speaker 2: done with the judiciary and disrespecting the separation of powers,
• 41:33
  Speaker 2: I think that is worthy of more articles of impeachment.
• 41:37
  Speaker 2: And I will give you one additional. I think that
• 41:39
  Speaker 2: what the president has done with his call for some
• 41:45
  Speaker 2: sort of extrajudicial remedy against persons who were advising people
• 41:51
  Speaker 2: in the military that they don't have to do things
• 41:55
  Speaker 2: that are unlawful. The president decided that these people should
• 42:00
  Speaker 2: suffer some extrajudicial remedy associated with their lives. We can't
• 42:05
  Speaker 2: let a president do that to members of Congress. I
• 42:08
  Speaker 2: would look into closely before I leave what is happening
• 42:12
  Speaker 2: with Representative Ilhan Omar, for the president now to have
• 42:18
  Speaker 2: his Justice Department, and it is his Justice Department de facto. Now,
• 42:23
  Speaker 2: in the jury, in theory, it's the country's Justice Department.
• 42:27
  Speaker 2: But de facto, because the head of the Justice Department
• 42:30
  Speaker 2: is the president's personal lawyer was, and he seems to
• 42:34
  Speaker 2: think that he is, at least with a faux pas
• 42:37
  Speaker 2: at some hearing, he said that he was the president's lawyer.
• 42:40
  Speaker 2: And he has seemed to have lived that out since
• 42:43
  Speaker 2: he's been in the position. So with all of this,
• 42:45
  Speaker 2: the president's Justice Department is Now, deciding that they would
• 42:50
  Speaker 2: take on a member of Congress, search the member's home,
• 42:54
  Speaker 2: and after having said the member shouldn't be in the country,
• 42:57
  Speaker 2: the president has talked about her as though she is
• 43:01
  Speaker 2: a person who is undocumented and in the country. That's right.
• 43:04
  Speaker 2: She is a citizen. She is an American citizen. And
• 43:08
  Speaker 2: as an American citizen, she has certain rights privileges under
• 43:12
  Speaker 2: the Constitution that are being ignored. For example, I don't
• 43:17
  Speaker 2: think that as an American citizen and a member of Congress,
• 43:20
  Speaker 2: the president can simply tell the Justice Department, we're going
• 43:24
  Speaker 2: to search this home. I would hope that that search
• 43:27
  Speaker 2: warrant would be reviewed very closely and carefully by lawyers
• 43:30
  Speaker 2: to see if we have a person who really found
• 43:34
  Speaker 2: the cause to do this, the probable cause to do this,
• 43:37
  Speaker 2: to search this home, because this is a member of Congress.
• 43:40
  Speaker 2: Why is it so important as it relates to a
• 43:42
  Speaker 2: member of Congress? because members of Congress cannot become supervised
• 43:47
  Speaker 2: by the president. The president doesn't supervise us, and we
• 43:51
  Speaker 2: don't supervise him. But when he breaks laws, we should,
• 43:54
  Speaker 2: of course, do what we can to make sure that
• 43:56
  Speaker 2: adjustments are made, and if there's a law broken by
• 43:59
  Speaker 2: a member of Congress. But this president has made it
• 44:01
  Speaker 2: very clear, perspicuously so, that this is a vindictive act.
• 44:06
  Speaker 2: this is an act of vindictiveness associated with the fact
• 44:11
  Speaker 2: that she's from a certain country and that has people
• 44:14
  Speaker 2: in this country who have been accused of transgressions that
• 44:19
  Speaker 2: quite frankly don't even make sense, some of what he
• 44:21
  Speaker 2: has said about the people. So I'm very much concerned
• 44:24
  Speaker 2: about what happened to her and would hope that someone
• 44:26
  Speaker 2: would look carefully into it.
• 44:28
  Speaker 4: Congressman, it's an honor to have you here and I
• 44:30
  Speaker 4: want to thank you for your service and you've reminded
• 44:32
  Speaker 4: me of all the reasons for optimism we've seen against
• 44:35
  Speaker 4: the weaponized DOJ, the grand jury rejecting the indictments against
• 44:39
  Speaker 4: the six Democratic lawmakers for saying you don't have to
• 44:42
  Speaker 4: follow illegal orders, the grand jury collapsing on the case
• 44:45
  Speaker 4: against James Comey, the dismissal of the indictment of the
• 44:48
  Speaker 4: tourist who was scapegoated for Donald Trump's reflecting pool debacle.
• 44:52
  Speaker 4: You have been so brave among Democrats for pointing out
• 44:57
  Speaker 4: that our whole constitutional system rejects the notion that a
• 45:00
  Speaker 4: king cannot be held responsible. for his government's conduct. And
• 45:04
  Speaker 4: I just want to thank you for trying to ensure
• 45:06
  Speaker 4: that the president is accountable to the people. I'm one
• 45:09
  Speaker 4: of those who's still crestfallen that Robert Mueller delivered 10
• 45:12
  Speaker 4: gift-wrapped counts of obstruction of justice and the Democrats didn't
• 45:16
  Speaker 4: do anything with it. I think impeachment is a tool.
• 45:19
  Speaker 4: The founders didn't want us to assassinate each other. That's
• 45:21
  Speaker 4: why they gave us impeachment. Of course, you know, some
• 45:24
  Speaker 4: members of Congress will argue in both parties that it
• 45:27
  Speaker 4: would be futile. Why impeach him again? Because there'll never
• 45:30
  Speaker 4: be 60 votes in the Senate. Congressman, before we get
• 45:33
  Speaker 4: to that, which will be all over the airwaves in
• 45:35
  Speaker 4: the new year, what is your response?
• 45:38
  Speaker 2: Well, here's why you impeach, because it's our duty in
• 45:42
  Speaker 2: the House to impeach. That's not what's notwithstanding what you
• 45:45
  Speaker 2: believe the Senate may do. Do your job and then
• 45:49
  Speaker 2: put the burden on the Senate to do its job.
• 45:52
  Speaker 2: And if the Senate doesn't do its job, then the
• 45:55
  Speaker 2: people can make a decision as to whether or not
• 45:57
  Speaker 2: they have the right Senate. I think that that's the
• 46:00
  Speaker 2: way the system is designed. All of this takes us
• 46:02
  Speaker 2: back to the people. The people have the last word.
• 46:06
  Speaker 2: We are the we and we the people. And they
• 46:08
  Speaker 2: will have the last word. So the Congress has to
• 46:10
  Speaker 2: do its job. But my dear brother, if I may
• 46:12
  Speaker 2: just say, brother, my dear brother, permit me to say this.
• 46:16
  Speaker 2: I really am saddened. now knowing that if the president
• 46:21
  Speaker 2: does as he says he can do, go out on
• 46:24
  Speaker 2: Fifth Avenue and shoot someone, if the president does it,
• 46:28
  Speaker 2: God forbid, don't believe that he will, to be quite honest.
• 46:31
  Speaker 2: I believe there would be Democrats, I'm a Democrat, liberated, unbought, unbossed,
• 46:37
  Speaker 2: and I say unafraid. I believe there would be Democrats
• 46:39
  Speaker 2: who would vote against impeaching the president. If it was video,
• 46:44
  Speaker 2: on video, and you could see it, you would have
• 46:47
  Speaker 2: some Democrats. And this is the party of liberty and
• 46:50
  Speaker 2: justice for all. If we see it, and then we
• 46:54
  Speaker 2: conclude we've got to have some long investigation, There was
• 46:58
  Speaker 2: no prolonged investigation with Andrew Johnson in 1868 as it
• 47:02
  Speaker 2: relates to Article 10. It just, it didn't happen. So
• 47:06
  Speaker 2: we cannot allow the notion that there must be this
• 47:10
  Speaker 2: prolonged investigation before you can impeach. Because here's a rationale.
• 47:16
  Speaker 2: The president's not going to allow the information to come
• 47:19
  Speaker 2: forward as it relates to Alex Pretty and Rene Good.
• 47:23
  Speaker 2: That information, they're not going to give it up. So
• 47:25
  Speaker 2: you spend all of your time trying to get information
• 47:28
  Speaker 2: that we're not going to get, and then you paint
• 47:30
  Speaker 2: yourself into this corner. Then what do you do? What
• 47:33
  Speaker 2: do you do at this point? Do you then go
• 47:35
  Speaker 2: ahead and move forward without having the information that you
• 47:38
  Speaker 2: thought you might acquire? We cannot become the party. that
• 47:43
  Speaker 2: allows the president to do things that we know we
• 47:48
  Speaker 2: can challenge without having to have these investigations. We must
• 47:52
  Speaker 2: move forward. And I'm just gonna beg, I hope that
• 47:56
  Speaker 2: Democrats will see Let me put a stop right there.
• 48:01
  Speaker 2: We'll see, and I'm going to come back to it.
• 48:03
  Speaker 2: I'm going to bring additional articles of impeachment.
• 48:05
  Speaker 4: Yes, you are.
• 48:06
  Speaker 2: I hope that they will see that what was not
• 48:10
  Speaker 2: done with the last articles has allowed two additional people
• 48:15
  Speaker 2: to now become subjects of shootings, and that it's only
• 48:20
  Speaker 2: going to get worse. The blood is going to be
• 48:23
  Speaker 2: on the hands of of people who don't vote to
• 48:26
  Speaker 2: do what we must do when we have a reckless, ruthless,
• 48:30
  Speaker 2: lawless president who has given his support to the unjustified
• 48:36
  Speaker 2: killings of American citizens. There should be some kind of indictment.
• 48:41
  Speaker 2: There should be some kind of information as it relates
• 48:44
  Speaker 2: to Alex Priddy sprawled out on the ground, all out
• 48:48
  Speaker 2: on the ground. This unarmed American citizen unarmed. Yes, he
• 48:53
  Speaker 2: had a weapon before he was disarmed, but at the
• 48:56
  Speaker 2: time he was shot, he didn't have it. And he
• 48:58
  Speaker 2: had the weapon lawfully. He was lawfully in possession.
• 49:01
  Speaker 4: Everything they would demand of you. Yes.
• 49:03
  Speaker 3: Yes.
• 49:04
  Speaker 2: So, and to shoot him nine or more times with
• 49:08
  Speaker 2: him there defenseless? Surely, if you can indict people who
• 49:14
  Speaker 2: are said to have tried to assault officers with a
• 49:17
  Speaker 2: vehicle immediately, What is taking so long to indict someone
• 49:22
  Speaker 2: in the Alex Pettit case?
• 49:24
  Speaker 1: Why?
• 49:24
  Speaker 2: It is a cover up. It's a cover up. And
• 49:28
  Speaker 2: that cover up is going to continue until either he
• 49:32
  Speaker 2: leaves office and then he will issue his pardons. And
• 49:36
  Speaker 2: that then absolves the officers because you can issue a
• 49:40
  Speaker 2: pardon for acts that haven't been done, it seems. That's right.
• 49:44
  Speaker 4: But not on the state level.
• 49:46
  Speaker 2: No, not at the state level. But that's why he
• 49:48
  Speaker 2: keeps the information from the state. You see, they can't
• 49:50
  Speaker 2: get the information. So he puts this in a silo.
• 49:55
  Speaker 2: Only those who are at the federal level can act.
• 49:59
  Speaker 2: And we have to act as members of Congress within justice.
• 50:03
  Speaker 1: It's also, as you say, a failure to recognize that
• 50:06
  Speaker 1: impeachment is supposed to be an obligation about protecting the
• 50:09
  Speaker 1: republic itself. And that's why it's been so important that
• 50:12
  Speaker 1: you've continued to bring these articles of impeachment, even if
• 50:16
  Speaker 1: the other party controls the Congress. And what it's meant
• 50:20
  Speaker 1: to say is this isn't just ordinary legislation. This isn't
• 50:23
  Speaker 1: just a budget issue. It really is about defense of
• 50:27
  Speaker 1: democracy and the failure to impeach, not just on the
• 50:30
  Speaker 1: 10 counts of obstruction of justice that Mueller outlined, but
• 50:34
  Speaker 1: in the quid pro quo in regard to the deal
• 50:37
  Speaker 1: that the president tried to force on the president of
• 50:39
  Speaker 1: the Ukraine. And most importantly, to my mind, almost the
• 50:42
  Speaker 1: paradigm of going back to the founders, what they would
• 50:46
  Speaker 1: have thought of as an impeachable offense. January 6th, the
• 50:49
  Speaker 1: attempt at a coup on our democracy, even having that information,
• 50:54
  Speaker 1: we were short of the votes, not just to impeach
• 50:57
  Speaker 1: and remove, but to disqualify this president from running again. So,
• 51:02
  Speaker 1: you know, with all that said, I've got to ask,
• 51:05
  Speaker 1: First of all, would we consider bringing back January 6th?
• 51:09
  Speaker 1: There's no, as an impeachable offense, there is no double,
• 51:13
  Speaker 1: just as there's no requirement of reasonable doubt. I'll add
• 51:16
  Speaker 1: to that, there is no right of double jeopardy of
• 51:19
  Speaker 1: a president against hearing an impeachment charge twice. And we
• 51:23
  Speaker 1: do know a lot more about January 6th than we
• 51:25
  Speaker 1: even did during.
• 51:26
  Speaker 3: The last impeachment as a result.
• 51:29
  Speaker 1: Of the efforts of the January 6th Committee and others
• 51:31
  Speaker 1: to bring to light just how dangerous a moment this
• 51:34
  Speaker 1: was and how close to a coup. So one follow-up
• 51:38
  Speaker 1: is whether or not you'd consider that, revisiting January 6th,
• 51:41
  Speaker 1: or you think that's just not strategic enough and we
• 51:43
  Speaker 1: have enough newness. I mean, my thought anyway is to
• 51:47
  Speaker 1: understand the massive amount of attacks on democracy that we've seen,
• 51:51
  Speaker 1: you have to understand the green light that he was
• 51:53
  Speaker 1: given by the failure to remove him and by the
• 51:56
  Speaker 1: immunity attacks. And then a second related idea that I'd
• 51:59
  Speaker 1: love to hear you talk about is if the Democratic
• 52:01
  Speaker 1: Party does take Congress, what else would you want to see?
• 52:04
  Speaker 1: You mentioned pardon abuses. I'm wondering about pardon reform. I'm
• 52:07
  Speaker 1: wondering about oversight.
• 52:09
  Speaker 2: Well, thank you. You've really given me a lot to
• 52:11
  Speaker 2: think about and to talk about in a short period
• 52:15
  Speaker 2: of time. But I want to go just one step
• 52:18
  Speaker 2: before I go to the two things that I will address.
• 52:21
  Speaker 2: And that is the president's oath of office. And this
• 52:24
  Speaker 2: is about the oath. You know, the president, he takes
• 52:28
  Speaker 2: this oath to defend the Constitution. And then members of
• 52:31
  Speaker 2: Congress take an oath as it relates to the Constitution.
• 52:34
  Speaker 2: And the members of Congress have an oath that I
• 52:38
  Speaker 2: think we are obligated to abide with. And unfortunately, I
• 52:44
  Speaker 2: don't think that we are putting up the best defense
• 52:47
  Speaker 2: for the Constitution. So I'm very much concerned about protecting
• 52:50
  Speaker 2: the Constitution. Now, with reference to January 6th, I think
• 52:54
  Speaker 2: you're eminently correct. There is nothing that prevents us from
• 52:59
  Speaker 2: bringing that up as it was presented word for word again.
• 53:03
  Speaker 2: But you're also correct in that there's so much more
• 53:06
  Speaker 2: that we know about that incident and the behavior of
• 53:10
  Speaker 2: the president after that incident that is relevant in my opinion.
• 53:15
  Speaker 2: I think it's relevant that the president on his first
• 53:18
  Speaker 2: day in the second term of office, the first thing
• 53:21
  Speaker 2: that he does is he pardons these people who were
• 53:25
  Speaker 2: engaged in the insurrection. And that in and of itself
• 53:29
  Speaker 2: sent a message to other people who were doing dastardly
• 53:32
  Speaker 2: deeds that I've got your back. So I think that
• 53:36
  Speaker 2: we can factor all of these things together. And yes,
• 53:38
  Speaker 2: we could bring it up again. And the, well, I
• 53:42
  Speaker 2: won't say unfortunate thing, but I won't be there to
• 53:45
  Speaker 2: do it. So the question is, will there be someone
• 53:47
  Speaker 2: else who will give consideration to it? But I think
• 53:50
  Speaker 2: that we should give consideration to what happened. That was
• 53:53
  Speaker 2: a moment in history that will live in infamy far
• 53:57
  Speaker 2: beyond We can imagine it really will because people around
• 54:01
  Speaker 2: the world saw it happen in real time. It didn't happen.
• 54:04
  Speaker 2: And then two or three months later, you discovered it.
• 54:07
  Speaker 2: I lived it in real time. I was right there
• 54:09
  Speaker 2: in the Capitol when they were storming the Capitol and
• 54:12
  Speaker 2: we locked down in our offices and we turn our
• 54:15
  Speaker 2: cell phones on silent. and we were in corners and
• 54:19
  Speaker 2: making sure that nobody could hear us move about because
• 54:23
  Speaker 2: people moving through the hallways, we were concerned. So with
• 54:26
  Speaker 2: that said, I do agree that yes. Now, in terms
• 54:29
  Speaker 2: of some additional things that we may look at, I've
• 54:32
  Speaker 2: called to your attention several things already, but I do
• 54:35
  Speaker 2: believe that as we go forward, we cannot overlook the
• 54:40
  Speaker 2: fact that this president has, by some authority, he has
• 54:46
  Speaker 2: vested in himself, not given to him, but has vested
• 54:50
  Speaker 2: in himself, completely decided that the Constitution is more advisory
• 54:57
  Speaker 2: than a legality requirement, an absolute requirement, the way he
• 55:03
  Speaker 2: treats it. And I think that just the way he
• 55:06
  Speaker 2: has disrespected the Constitution itself is enough for us to
• 55:11
  Speaker 2: look to some articles of impeachment that are couched in
• 55:14
  Speaker 2: just disrespect for the Constitution. For example, the whole notion
• 55:18
  Speaker 2: of free speech as it relates to people who have
• 55:21
  Speaker 2: said things that he didn't agree with. The whole notion
• 55:24
  Speaker 2: that you can go into a person's home without a
• 55:27
  Speaker 2: proper warrant. The notion that you're going to somehow now
• 55:31
  Speaker 2: send people out of the country, deport them, take them
• 55:34
  Speaker 2: away from loved ones. Nobody knows where they are. I mean,
• 55:37
  Speaker 2: the Constitution... talks about something called due process. Due process.
• 55:43
  Speaker 2: That simply put is the right to raise your hand
• 55:45
  Speaker 2: and say, hey, no, you got the wrong guy. I'm
• 55:48
  Speaker 2: not that person. No, this is wrong. The due process
• 55:52
  Speaker 2: is something we cannot allow to somehow just evaporate. And
• 55:57
  Speaker 2: he seems to think that those things in the Constitution
• 56:00
  Speaker 2: are not worthy of respecting. And as a result, he
• 56:04
  Speaker 2: does these things. And then he goes to court to
• 56:06
  Speaker 2: try to justify it. And eventually he's slapped on the head.
• 56:10
  Speaker 2: And then he goes back and starts anew with something
• 56:13
  Speaker 2: that is even more egregious. But I'll say to you,
• 56:16
  Speaker 2: we should look at just how he has abused just
• 56:19
  Speaker 2: the Constitution in general. You know, the Fifth Amendment, the
• 56:23
  Speaker 2: 14th Amendment of the Constitution. These are some amendments that
• 56:26
  Speaker 2: have made the difference in our lives. And I would
• 56:29
  Speaker 2: hope that someone would give some thought to that.
• 56:32
  Speaker 4: See, Professor, this is why I'm on Team Al Green,
• 56:34
  Speaker 4: because the president will only acquire more power in practice
• 56:39
  Speaker 4: if Congress is too reluctant to challenge him. You're giving
• 56:42
  Speaker 4: us the answer, sir.
• 56:44
  Speaker 2: Well, I don't know that I've given you the answer,
• 56:46
  Speaker 2: but I can tell you this. The answer that I
• 56:48
  Speaker 2: gave you, John Lewis would have given you.
• 56:51
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 56:51
  Speaker 2: And I know he would have because he and I
• 56:53
  Speaker 2: were friends. He and I were incarcerated together for protesting.
• 56:58
  Speaker 2: And we talked about these things. And John Lewis was
• 57:01
  Speaker 2: a staunch believer that if there is an injustice, you
• 57:06
  Speaker 2: have to attack it. You've got to confront it. You've
• 57:10
  Speaker 2: got to confront it because if you don't confront it,
• 57:13
  Speaker 2: it will be perceived to be something other than the
• 57:16
  Speaker 2: injustice that it is. This is why, and pardon me
• 57:19
  Speaker 2: for running astray now, but this is why I had
• 57:22
  Speaker 2: to stand up with the sign that says, black people
• 57:25
  Speaker 2: aren't apes. Because if you don't challenge that, then it
• 57:29
  Speaker 2: becomes a part of the norm to talk about black
• 57:32
  Speaker 2: people as apes, as was done in the distant past.
• 57:35
  Speaker 2: So you have to challenge it. And you have to
• 57:38
  Speaker 2: challenge a president when you know that he's about to
• 57:40
  Speaker 2: destroy healthcare with just trillions of dollars, but billions of
• 57:46
  Speaker 2: dollars amounting to a trillion from healthcare. So if you
• 57:49
  Speaker 2: don't do these things, if you don't challenge these things,
• 57:53
  Speaker 2: then you become complicit And it becomes a part of
• 57:56
  Speaker 2: the norm. So that was John Lewis's message to me,
• 58:00
  Speaker 2: and I took it to heart. And I would ask
• 58:01
  Speaker 2: other people to take his message to heart, not mine,
• 58:04
  Speaker 2: but his message to heart, that we have to stand,
• 58:07
  Speaker 2: even if you have to stand alone. It is better
• 58:10
  Speaker 2: to stand alone on some issues than not stand at all.
• 58:13
  Speaker 1: And Congressman, I'd be remiss in not asking you, given
• 58:16
  Speaker 1: that you brought up John Lewis, the attacks by this
• 58:20
  Speaker 1: president and to think about with us how to repair
• 58:23
  Speaker 1: after the attacks that this president has made, not just
• 58:26
  Speaker 1: on the Constitution, not just on our civil liberties and
• 58:28
  Speaker 1: our civil rights, but on history and the way that
• 58:32
  Speaker 1: he's attacked the Smithsonian, that he tried to, or at
• 58:35
  Speaker 1: least his government tried to remove in Philadelphia and the
• 58:39
  Speaker 1: president's house, the images of, to be honest, about the
• 58:43
  Speaker 1: fact that there was slavery at the founding. What is it,
• 58:46
  Speaker 1: you know, as you leave Congress and leave us to
• 58:49
  Speaker 1: think about how to deal with this president that we
• 58:51
  Speaker 1: can do to reclaim the truth about our history, about
• 58:56
  Speaker 1: black history? I also want to bring up again, Andrew Johnson.
• 59:00
  Speaker 1: I'm so glad we got to talk about him that,
• 59:02
  Speaker 1: you know, so much of the 20th century was to
• 59:04
  Speaker 1: try to turn that impeachment, which was, as we agreed,
• 59:08
  Speaker 1: about removing a president that was due nothing less than
• 59:10
  Speaker 1: trying to bring back slavery under a different name to
• 59:13
  Speaker 1: make black Americans second class citizens.
• 59:16
  Speaker 3: There was an attempt to say and John F.
• 59:18
  Speaker 1: Kennedy actually was part of this, that he was unfairly
• 59:21
  Speaker 1: targeted for partisan reasons, a rewriting of that history.
• 59:25
  Speaker 3: So so much of what we're seeing again is.
• 59:27
  Speaker 1: Is an attempt to rewrite history and to write Black
• 59:30
  Speaker 1: Americans out of history.
• 59:31
  Speaker 3: What can we do?
• 59:33
  Speaker 1: I know you're involved in several efforts in this regard,
• 59:36
  Speaker 1: but what can we do to fight back and to reclaim, well,
• 59:38
  Speaker 1: the truth of what the history of this country is?
• 59:42
  Speaker 2: Well, thank you. I would start with the Aboriginal Americans,
• 59:45
  Speaker 2: the Indigenous Americans. and the atrocities that they suffered, land
• 59:50
  Speaker 2: taken from them, the Trail of Tears, just how they
• 59:53
  Speaker 2: were given blankets that were infected with diseases so that
• 59:59
  Speaker 2: they would suffer. There was, by most standards, there was
• 1:00:03
  Speaker 2: an effort to eradicate the Aboriginal Americans, the people that
• 1:00:08
  Speaker 2: we call Indians. That was this effort to eradicate them.
• 1:00:11
  Speaker 2: That was a crime against humanity. We didn't say it
• 1:00:15
  Speaker 2: as such then and see it as such then, but
• 1:00:17
  Speaker 2: this is why looking through the vista of time, you
• 1:00:20
  Speaker 2: get a clearer vision of what actually happened. So I
• 1:00:23
  Speaker 2: would start with them, but there are many others. Now
• 1:00:26
  Speaker 2: I'll move a quantum leap forward and talk about the
• 1:00:29
  Speaker 2: Africans who were in America and who were enslaved for
• 1:00:32
  Speaker 2: some 240 plus years. The persons who planted the seeds,
• 1:00:36
  Speaker 2: harvested the crops, had a hand in building the White House,
• 1:00:39
  Speaker 2: had a hand in building the Capitol. They were truly
• 1:00:42
  Speaker 2: the economic foundational mothers and fathers of the country, not
• 1:00:47
  Speaker 2: because they had money to dole out, but because they
• 1:00:49
  Speaker 2: gave 240 plus years of free labor. That sacrifice has
• 1:00:55
  Speaker 2: never been properly acknowledged. Now there's an effort being made
• 1:01:00
  Speaker 2: to somehow cause it to appear as though they were
• 1:01:04
  Speaker 2: just people who Suffered a little bit, wasn't a big deal.
• 1:01:07
  Speaker 2: They learned skills and as a result of the skills
• 1:01:10
  Speaker 2: that they learned, they benefited from those skills. Don't tell
• 1:01:14
  Speaker 2: me that they benefited from enslavement, which was kidnapping, which
• 1:01:19
  Speaker 2: was murder, which was rape. That's not something that we
• 1:01:22
  Speaker 2: would say people benefited from. So we have to recognize them,
• 1:01:26
  Speaker 2: which is why we now have August the 20th, a
• 1:01:30
  Speaker 2: Slavery Remembrance Day, because it was on August the 20th
• 1:01:34
  Speaker 2: of 1619 that the White Lion docked at a place
• 1:01:38
  Speaker 2: called Point Comfort with the first 20 persons of African
• 1:01:41
  Speaker 2: ancestry on it, may have been a little more than
• 1:01:44
  Speaker 2: 20 or a little less. We don't know the exact number,
• 1:01:46
  Speaker 2: but we say 20. And they were persons who were
• 1:01:50
  Speaker 2: introduced into the colonies that would become the United States
• 1:01:54
  Speaker 2: of America as enslaved persons. So that day is a
• 1:01:59
  Speaker 2: day that we set aside for slavery remembrance. And the
• 1:02:02
  Speaker 2: House has approved it. President Biden recognized it. Elizabeth Warren
• 1:02:07
  Speaker 2: has legislation to get it approved by the Senate. But
• 1:02:10
  Speaker 2: the truth is African-Americans should not have to have the
• 1:02:14
  Speaker 2: Senate's approval to recognize slavery remembrance, and the country doesn't
• 1:02:18
  Speaker 2: have to have it. We don't have to have anybody's
• 1:02:20
  Speaker 2: approval to recognize what happened in the Holocaust. The Holocaust
• 1:02:24
  Speaker 2: was a crime against humanity. one of the greatest crimes
• 1:02:27
  Speaker 2: ever against humanity. So was the enslavement of people for
• 1:02:31
  Speaker 2: some 240 years, and it ought to be equally recognized.
• 1:02:35
  Speaker 2: Now I'm going to do something that will help us
• 1:02:38
  Speaker 2: all understand why you don't have slavery remembrance and the
• 1:02:42
  Speaker 2: things that the enslaved persons did to make America great,
• 1:02:45
  Speaker 2: recognized to the same extent. as some other such circumstances.
• 1:02:49
  Speaker 2: And I'll use the Holocaust, which is a dangerous thing
• 1:02:51
  Speaker 2: to do in this country. But I live on the edge.
• 1:02:54
  Speaker 2: Here's why. Because when we talk about the Holocaust, we
• 1:02:58
  Speaker 2: can talk about it truthfully. The millions sent to ovens,
• 1:03:03
  Speaker 2: killed in ways that are so horrific that if you
• 1:03:06
  Speaker 2: go to Yad Vashem in Israel, what's called a Holocaust museum,
• 1:03:11
  Speaker 2: you'll leave with tears in your eyes. I mean, it'll
• 1:03:14
  Speaker 2: break your heart to go through Yad Vashem. But we
• 1:03:17
  Speaker 2: can do that because we're looking through the window of life.
• 1:03:20
  Speaker 2: We're looking into the lives of other people in another place.
• 1:03:24
  Speaker 2: But when it comes to the enslavement of people, we're
• 1:03:27
  Speaker 2: looking into the mirror of life. And that mirror reflects us.
• 1:03:31
  Speaker 2: And we don't want to see ourselves as what we
• 1:03:35
  Speaker 2: were at that time. But that time has passed. Let
• 1:03:39
  Speaker 2: us be truthful about that history and let us reflect
• 1:03:43
  Speaker 2: on how that history impacts people to this day. It
• 1:03:47
  Speaker 2: hasn't been that long ago that people were still suffering
• 1:03:50
  Speaker 2: from slavery because after slavery, there was something called convict leasing.
• 1:03:56
  Speaker 2: And after convict leasing, there was something called lawful segregation.
• 1:04:00
  Speaker 2: And that was a part of the convict leasing too,
• 1:04:02
  Speaker 2: but lawful segregation, which was racism, another form of invidious discrimination.
• 1:04:07
  Speaker 2: And that lasted until, in theory, until Brown case in 1954.
• 1:04:12
  Speaker 2: But these things don't just go away because... We don't
• 1:04:17
  Speaker 2: do them openly, notoriously, and overtly, these dastardly deeds. So
• 1:04:21
  Speaker 2: if we would tell the truth, it would help us
• 1:04:24
  Speaker 2: to heal the nation. And it would help us to
• 1:04:26
  Speaker 2: better understand why some people have a poverty rate that's
• 1:04:31
  Speaker 2: always twice that of the poverty rate of others. While
• 1:04:34
  Speaker 2: some people have an unemployment rate that's always twice that
• 1:04:38
  Speaker 2: of others. Doesn't matter whether it's good times or bad times.
• 1:04:41
  Speaker 2: It varies slightly from time to time. But for African Americans,
• 1:04:46
  Speaker 2: the poverty rate is twice that of Anglos almost all
• 1:04:50
  Speaker 2: the time. And the unemployment rate is the same almost
• 1:04:53
  Speaker 2: all the time. Now, there's got to be an explanation
• 1:04:55
  Speaker 2: for that other than Black people don't want to work
• 1:04:59
  Speaker 2: and they just, you know, that's why they're unemployed. Or
• 1:05:02
  Speaker 2: that Black people are in poverty because they choose to
• 1:05:07
  Speaker 2: be panhandlers. They're just lazy. And if they would do better,
• 1:05:11
  Speaker 2: they could have the same riches that other people enjoy.
• 1:05:14
  Speaker 2: There is still invidious discrimination taking place. And we have
• 1:05:17
  Speaker 2: to recognize it and deal with that. So I'm sorry
• 1:05:20
  Speaker 2: if I went so far afield. Not at all.
• 1:05:23
  Speaker 3: That's what we need.
• 1:05:24
  Speaker 2: You gave me the opportunity to address this. And by
• 1:05:27
  Speaker 2: the way, I say this with love for everybody in
• 1:05:30
  Speaker 2: the country. I don't say these things because I hate
• 1:05:33
  Speaker 2: somebody else. I say it because I love the country.
• 1:05:36
  Speaker 2: And I want us to have a much better understanding
• 1:05:41
  Speaker 2: of what liberty and justice for all is really all about.
• 1:05:43
  Speaker 1: Amen.
• 1:05:44
  Speaker 2: That includes Latinos, by the way, who currently, if you're
• 1:05:48
  Speaker 2: a Latino in this country now, and you're riding around
• 1:05:51
  Speaker 2: a white van in Houston, Texas, you can probably be
• 1:05:54
  Speaker 2: stopped because somebody suspects that you may be here undocumented.
• 1:05:59
  Speaker 2: And as a result, only God knows what will happen
• 1:06:02
  Speaker 2: when that attempt to stop you takes place. So I
• 1:06:05
  Speaker 2: stand with them. We're going to fight this injustice that's
• 1:06:09
  Speaker 2: being perpetrated upon them, this ability to simply engage in
• 1:06:14
  Speaker 2: some sort of ideology that allows you to determine a
• 1:06:19
  Speaker 2: person's worth, who they are, by simply looking at them.
• 1:06:24
  Speaker 2: You know, identity and incarceration. I think we need to
• 1:06:29
  Speaker 2: look closely at how we're treating our brothers who are
• 1:06:32
  Speaker 2: Latinos and cis men.
• 1:06:33
  Speaker 3: Amen.
• 1:06:34
  Speaker 1: Congressman, thank you so much for this conversation. You know,
• 1:06:37
  Speaker 1: so much of what the news is about is strategy and.
• 1:06:39
  Speaker 3: That matters, or horse races. And of course, all of
• 1:06:42
  Speaker 3: that's important. But what's more important is the truth.
• 1:06:45
  Speaker 1: And you've really been reminding us that serving in Congress
• 1:06:48
  Speaker 1: is a matter of obligation to defend our democracy, to
• 1:06:52
  Speaker 1: tell the truth about our history. So I really want
• 1:06:54
  Speaker 1: to thank you for joining us on The Oath in
• 1:06:57
  Speaker 1: the Office.
• 1:06:58
  Speaker 2: Well, thank you. It's been my honor to be with you.
• 1:07:00
  Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Thank you, sir.
• 1:07:03
  Speaker 4: Corey, Congressman Al Green did not disappoint. So really, really
• 1:07:07
  Speaker 4: thanks for booking him. I'm really thrilled to meet him.
• 1:07:09
  Speaker 1: Well, it was really a pleasure to have him. And,
• 1:07:12
  Speaker 1: you know, I think so much of the way we
• 1:07:14
  Speaker 1: talk about politics, as I said at the end, is
• 1:07:17
  Speaker 1: strategy and thinking about, you know, horse races and what's
• 1:07:21
  Speaker 1: going to play well. And, you know, at some point
• 1:07:23
  Speaker 1: we've got to say what the truth is. And so
• 1:07:25
  Speaker 1: having somebody who really is willing to talk about the truth,
• 1:07:29
  Speaker 1: not to be overly strategic, you know, is considering strategy too,
• 1:07:33
  Speaker 1: but to really talk about the truth of this assault
• 1:07:36
  Speaker 1: on our democracy and to do it with such an
• 1:07:38
  Speaker 1: informed mind.
• 1:07:39
  Speaker 3: Account of history.
• 1:07:40
  Speaker 1: And that conversation is not something you hear, I think,
• 1:07:43
  Speaker 1: on mainstream media about Andrew Johnson and in depth on
• 1:07:46
  Speaker 1: the Johnson impeachment. But it's so important to see that
• 1:07:49
  Speaker 1: in order to see what we need to do in
• 1:07:52
  Speaker 1: the future.
• 1:07:52
  Speaker 4: So we will always talk about the Andrew Johnson impeachment
• 1:07:55
  Speaker 4: on this show because we are always going to be
• 1:07:58
  Speaker 4: chasing the Gen Z and millennial audience.
• 1:08:01
  Speaker 3: Absolutely.
• 1:08:01
  Speaker 4: I'm here for it. No, just great. And at a
• 1:08:04
  Speaker 4: week like this, you know, I'm so sorry that he
• 1:08:05
  Speaker 4: will be leaving the Congress. I'd love to see him
• 1:08:08
  Speaker 4: get a great new job. I hear Ambassador Degrees is open,
• 1:08:11
  Speaker 4: but I don't think he's going to get offered it. Corey,
• 1:08:14
  Speaker 4: what is the best way for our listeners to follow
• 1:08:16
  Speaker 4: you and keep up with your brilliance the rest of
• 1:08:18
  Speaker 4: the week?
• 1:08:18
  Speaker 1: Well, let me just say first, thank you to our
• 1:08:20
  Speaker 1: amazing listeners. We were number one again in Apple Trending
• 1:08:24
  Speaker 1: Podcast episodes. last week, and that's because people are not
• 1:08:28
  Speaker 1: just listening to the show. Maybe this is a little
• 1:08:31
  Speaker 1: too nitty-gritty for everyone, but we have a high completion rate,
• 1:08:34
  Speaker 1: which means people aren't just listening for a few minutes.
• 1:08:36
  Speaker 1: They're listening to the whole show, and that's because I
• 1:08:40
  Speaker 1: think the listeners want to be informed and are getting informed,
• 1:08:43
  Speaker 1: and an interview like that does it. So if you haven't,
• 1:08:46
  Speaker 1: push that subscribe button. Recommend us to others. Write a recommendation.
• 1:08:51
  Speaker 1: You can also watch us on YouTube, and of course,
• 1:08:53
  Speaker 1: we have a newsletter where we're going in depth about
• 1:08:56
  Speaker 1: these stories on Substack. So check out the Oath in
• 1:08:58
  Speaker 1: the Office Substack as well.
• 1:09:00
  Speaker 4: Right on. I want to thank everybody.
• 1:09:01
  Speaker 2: Thanks, Wendy.
• 1:09:02
  Speaker 4: Thanks, Beowulf. And most of all, thank you, Professor. And
• 1:09:05
  Speaker 4: I'm on Sirius XM five days a week, 12 noon Eastern,
• 1:09:08
  Speaker 4: 9 a.m. Pacific time on Channel 127. Corey's with me
• 1:09:11
  Speaker 4: in the studio every Monday. And my book is called
• 1:09:14
  Speaker 4: Separation of Church and Hate. The next book I'm allowed
• 1:09:16
  Speaker 4: to announce is called Fake Christians, a biblically correct guide
• 1:09:20
  Speaker 4: to breaking the grip of holy hypocrites, gospel grifters and
• 1:09:23
  Speaker 4: theocratic thugs. And that'll be blaspheming at a bookstore near
• 1:09:26
  Speaker 4: you this Easter. Now on sale. I'm done with plugs, Corey.
• 1:09:29
  Speaker 2: Thank you.
• 1:09:30
  Speaker 3: What a pleasure, John.
• 1:09:31
  Speaker 1: Thanks to everyone for listening, and we'll see you next week.
• 1:09:34
  Speaker 4: On the Oath in the Office.