Appointments available now.
>>> LAST WEEK SENATOR KAMALA
>>> LAST WEEK SENATOR KAMALA HARRIS OF CALIFORNIA SENT A
HARRIS OF CALIFORNIA SENT A LETTER TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT
LETTER TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT INSPECTOR GENERAL, STEVE
INSPECTOR GENERAL, STEVE LINNICK, DEMANDING THAT HE
LINNICK, DEMANDING THAT HE INVESTIGATE WHETHER STATE
INVESTIGATE WHETHER STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS WORKED WITH
DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS WORKED WITH RUDY GIULIANI, QUOTE, IN
RUDY GIULIANI, QUOTE, IN VIOLATION OF RESTRICTIONS ON
VIOLATION OF RESTRICTIONS ON ENGAGING IN PARTISAN POLITICAL
ENGAGING IN PARTISAN POLITICAL ACTIVITY.
ACTIVITY. NBC NEWS IS REPORTING THAT
NBC NEWS IS REPORTING THAT INSPECTOR GENERAL STEVE LINNICK
INSPECTOR GENERAL STEVE LINNICK MADE AN URGENT REQUEST TONIGHT
MADE AN URGENT REQUEST TONIGHT TO BRIEF SEVERAL HOUSE SENATE
TO BRIEF SEVERAL HOUSE SENATE COMMITTEES TOMORROW ABOUT
COMMITTEES TOMORROW ABOUT DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE STATE
DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND UKRAINE.
DEPARTMENT AND UKRAINE. AND JOINING US NOW IS DEMOCRATIC
AND JOINING US NOW IS DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE SENATOR
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE SENATOR KAMALA HARRIS OF CALIFORNIA.
KAMALA HARRIS OF CALIFORNIA. SHE’S A MEMBER OF THE SENATE
SHE’S A MEMBER OF THE SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AND
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AND SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. SENATOR HARRIS, I HAVE TO ASK
SENATOR HARRIS, I HAVE TO ASK YOU, ISN’T IT POSSIBLE THAT YOUR
YOU, ISN’T IT POSSIBLE THAT YOUR LETTER TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
LETTER TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL IS WHAT TRIGGERED SOME KIND OF
IS WHAT TRIGGERED SOME KIND OF INQUIRY BY HIM THAT HAS HIM
INQUIRY BY HIM THAT HAS HIM RUSHING TO CONGRESS TOMORROW FOR
RUSHING TO CONGRESS TOMORROW FOR A CLOSED DOOR BRIEFING?
A CLOSED DOOR BRIEFING? >> I’M SURE IT’S POSSIBLE,
>> I’M SURE IT’S POSSIBLE, LAWRENCE, BUT AS CLAIRE
LAWRENCE, BUT AS CLAIRE McCASKILL SAID EARLIER, THE
McCASKILL SAID EARLIER, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL AS CARRYOVER
INSPECTOR GENERAL AS CARRYOVER FROM A PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION
FROM A PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION KNOWS THAT FUNDAMENTALLY THEIR
KNOWS THAT FUNDAMENTALLY THEIR DUTY IS TO INCREMENTALLY SHARE
DUTY IS TO INCREMENTALLY SHARE THE ISSUES.
THE ISSUES. THEY HAD A QUESTION TO ANSWER
THEY HAD A QUESTION TO ANSWER WITH RUDY GIULIANI’S ENGAGEMENT
WITH RUDY GIULIANI’S ENGAGEMENT WITH OFFICIALS, AND WHAT
WITH OFFICIALS, AND WHAT RESOURCES OR TAX DOLLARS WERE
RESOURCES OR TAX DOLLARS WERE USED TO FACILITATE BASICALLY THE
USED TO FACILITATE BASICALLY THE REQUEST OF POLITICAL FAVORS FROM
REQUEST OF POLITICAL FAVORS FROM A FOREIGN HEAD OF GOVERNMENT BY
A FOREIGN HEAD OF GOVERNMENT BY DONALD TRUMP.
DONALD TRUMP. >> MIKE POMPEO’S LETTER TODAY TO
>> MIKE POMPEO’S LETTER TODAY TO THE CHAIRMAN IN THE HOUSE
THE CHAIRMAN IN THE HOUSE REFUSING TO COMPLY WITH THEIR
REFUSING TO COMPLY WITH THEIR REQUEST TO DEPOSE STATE
REQUEST TO DEPOSE STATE DEPARTMENT WITNESSES COMPLAINED
DEPARTMENT WITNESSES COMPLAINED OF BULLYING IN THEIR TACTICS
OF BULLYING IN THEIR TACTICS BECAUSE IN THEIR NOTICES OF THE
BECAUSE IN THEIR NOTICES OF THE REQUEST FOR THESE DEPOSITIONS,
REQUEST FOR THESE DEPOSITIONS, THEY REMINDED THE SECRETARY OF
THEY REMINDED THE SECRETARY OF STATE WHAT THE LAW IS AND WHAT
STATE WHAT THE LAW IS AND WHAT THEY WOULD INTERPRET AS
THEY WOULD INTERPRET AS OBSTRUCTION OF THEIR ACTIVITY.
OBSTRUCTION OF THEIR ACTIVITY. TONIGHT IN RESPONSE TO POMPEO’S
TONIGHT IN RESPONSE TO POMPEO’S REFUSAL, THOSE CHAIRMEN NOW HAVE
REFUSAL, THOSE CHAIRMEN NOW HAVE SENT A LETTER TO THE DEPUTY
SENT A LETTER TO THE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE REMINDING HIM
SECRETARY OF STATE REMINDING HIM THAT IT IS, AS THEY PUT IT, A
THAT IT IS, AS THEY PUT IT, A CRIMINAL VIOLATION PUNISHABLE BY
CRIMINAL VIOLATION PUNISHABLE BY FINE OF UP TO FIVE YEARS IN
FINE OF UP TO FIVE YEARS IN PRISON TO BUY THREATS OR FORCE
PRISON TO BUY THREATS OR FORCE OR BUY ANY THREATENING LETTER OR
OR BUY ANY THREATENING LETTER OR COMMUNICATION, INFLUENCE,
COMMUNICATION, INFLUENCE, OBSTRUCT, IMPEDE THE DUE PROCESS
OBSTRUCT, IMPEDE THE DUE PROCESS EXERCISE OF THEIR GOVERNMENTAL
EXERCISE OF THEIR GOVERNMENTAL POWERS.
POWERS. IS IT APPROPRIATE TO BE CITING
IS IT APPROPRIATE TO BE CITING THESE CRIMINAL STATUTES WHEN
THESE CRIMINAL STATUTES WHEN TALKING WITH THE STATE
TALKING WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT ABOUT OBTAINING
DEPARTMENT ABOUT OBTAINING INFORMATION?
INFORMATION? >> IN AN INQUIRY THAT IS A
>> IN AN INQUIRY THAT IS A LEGITIMATE AND IMPORTANT INQUIRY
LEGITIMATE AND IMPORTANT INQUIRY ABOUT HOW THE RESOURCES OF THIS
ABOUT HOW THE RESOURCES OF THIS SECRETARY OF STATE AND THE STATE
SECRETARY OF STATE AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAVE BEEN USED, AND
DEPARTMENT HAVE BEEN USED, AND HAVE THEY BEEN UGSD FOR THESED F
HAVE THEY BEEN UGSD FOR THESED F POLITICAL BENEFIT OF THIS
POLITICAL BENEFIT OF THIS PRESIDENT AND NOT FOR NATIONAL
PRESIDENT AND NOT FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.
SECURITY. WHILE WE’RE TALKING ABOUT WHO IS
WHILE WE’RE TALKING ABOUT WHO IS REMINDING WHO, I THINK
REMINDING WHO, I THINK CONGRESSMAN MIKE POMPEO NEEDS TO
CONGRESSMAN MIKE POMPEO NEEDS TO REMIND SECRETARY OF STATE MIKE
REMIND SECRETARY OF STATE MIKE POMPEO OF WHAT HE ARGUED WHEN HE
POMPEO OF WHAT HE ARGUED WHEN HE HAD HILLARY CLINTON BEFORE THE
HAD HILLARY CLINTON BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON BENGHAZI.
COMMITTEE ON BENGHAZI. BECAUSE IT REEKS OF HYPOCRISY
BECAUSE IT REEKS OF HYPOCRISY AND OF ONE STANDARD IN ONE
AND OF ONE STANDARD IN ONE SITUATION AND ONE THAT DOESN’T
SITUATION AND ONE THAT DOESN’T SUIT HIM, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN HE
SUIT HIM, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN HE GOES QUIET AND SHUTS DOWN THE
GOES QUIET AND SHUTS DOWN THE PROCESS.
PROCESS. SO THERE IS THAT, LAWRENCE.
SO THERE IS THAT, LAWRENCE. BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS I’M VERY
BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS I’M VERY HAPPY AND EXCITED THAT THE I.G.
HAPPY AND EXCITED THAT THE I.G. HAS KICKED IN AND IS DOING THE
HAS KICKED IN AND IS DOING THE JOB THAT HE WAS DESIGNED TO DO
JOB THAT HE WAS DESIGNED TO DO AS INSPECTOR GENERAL.
AS INSPECTOR GENERAL. AND I THINK THE INQUIRY IS
AND I THINK THE INQUIRY IS PROCEEDING AS IT SHOULD IN THAT
PROCEEDING AS IT SHOULD IN THAT REGARD, BUT SECRETARY OF STATE
REGARD, BUT SECRETARY OF STATE MIKE POMPEO REALLY HAS A LOT OF
MIKE POMPEO REALLY HAS A LOT OF QUESTIONS TO ANSWER, AND
QUESTIONS TO ANSWER, AND FRANKLY, I THINK THAT WE ALL SEE
FRANKLY, I THINK THAT WE ALL SEE THAT HE IS ON THE VERGE OF
THAT HE IS ON THE VERGE OF OBJECT STRUBTING JUSTICE IF HE
OBJECT STRUBTING JUSTICE IF HE IS GOING TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE
IS GOING TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE THAT MAY VERY WELL BE EVIDENCE
THAT MAY VERY WELL BE EVIDENCE OF A CRIME.
OF A CRIME. >> SENATOR POMPEO WAS IN ITALY
>> SENATOR POMPEO WAS IN ITALY TONIGHT A WEEK AFTER, IT TURNS
TONIGHT A WEEK AFTER, IT TURNS OUT, ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR WAS
OUT, ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR WAS SECRETLY IN ITALY WHICH WE’VE
SECRETLY IN ITALY WHICH WE’VE NOW DISCOVERED, AND HE WAS THERE
NOW DISCOVERED, AND HE WAS THERE ONCE AGAIN APPARENTLY TRYING TO
ONCE AGAIN APPARENTLY TRYING TO HELP THE PRESIDENT’S REELECTION
HELP THE PRESIDENT’S REELECTION CAMPAIGN.
CAMPAIGN. THEY HOPE TO UNDERMINE THE OFFER
THEY HOPE TO UNDERMINE THE OFFER ENGINES OF WHAT BECAME THE
ENGINES OF WHAT BECAME THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION.
MUELLER INVESTIGATION. YOU ASKED ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR
YOU ASKED ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR WHETHER HE’SR ENASKED TO DO
WHETHER HE’SR ENASKED TO DO INVESTIGATIONEDED.
INVESTIGATIONEDED. LET’S TAKE A LOOK AT THE WAY HE
LET’S TAKE A LOOK AT THE WAY HE HANDLED THAT QUESTION.
HANDLED THAT QUESTION. >> HAS THE PRESIDENT OR ANYONE
>> HAS THE PRESIDENT OR ANYONE AT THE WHITE HOUSE EVER ASKED OR
AT THE WHITE HOUSE EVER ASKED OR SUGGESTED THAT YOU OPEN AN
SUGGESTED THAT YOU OPEN AN INVESTIGATION OF ANYONE?
INVESTIGATION OF ANYONE? YES OR NO, PLEASE, SIR.
YES OR NO, PLEASE, SIR. >> THE PRESIDENT OR ANYBODY
>> THE PRESIDENT OR ANYBODY ELSE.
ELSE. >> IT SEEMS YOU WOULD REMEMBER
>> IT SEEMS YOU WOULD REMEMBER SOMETHING LIKE THAT AND WOULD BE
SOMETHING LIKE THAT AND WOULD BE ABLE TO TELL US.
ABLE TO TELL US. >> I’M TRYING TO GRAPPLE WITH
>> I’M TRYING TO GRAPPLE WITH THE WORD "SUGGESTS."
THE WORD "SUGGESTS." THERE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSIONS OF
THERE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSIONS OF MATTERS OUT THERE THAT THEY HAVE
MATTERS OUT THERE THAT THEY HAVE NOT ASKED ME TO OPEN AN
NOT ASKED ME TO OPEN AN INVESTIGATION.
INVESTIGATION. >> PERHAPS THEY’VE SUGGESTED?
>> PERHAPS THEY’VE SUGGESTED? >> I WOULDN’T SAY SUGGEST.
>> I WOULDN’T SAY SUGGEST. >> HINTED?
>> HINTED? >> I DON’T KNOW.
>> I DON’T KNOW. >> SO FOR WILLIAM BARR, IT ALL
>> SO FOR WILLIAM BARR, IT ALL TURNS ON THE DEFINITION OF THE
TURNS ON THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD "SUGGEST."
WORD "SUGGEST." >> CLEARLY FOR WILLIAM BARR, IT
>> CLEARLY FOR WILLIAM BARR, IT ALSO TURNS TO THE FACT THAT HE
ALSO TURNS TO THE FACT THAT HE DINT
DINT DINT.
DINT. AT THAT VERY MOMENT, I THINK IT
AT THAT VERY MOMENT, I THINK IT BECAME CLEAR THAT HE WAS NOT
BECAME CLEAR THAT HE WAS NOT BEING FORTHRIGHT WITH THE
BEING FORTHRIGHT WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THE CONGRESS
AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THAT’S WHY I HAVE CALLED FOR HIM
THAT’S WHY I HAVE CALLED FOR HIM TO COME BACK AND, UNDER OATH,
TO COME BACK AND, UNDER OATH, TESTIFY AN ANSWER TO THAT
TESTIFY AN ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION YET AGAIN.
QUESTION YET AGAIN. THAT’S WHY I CALLED LAURNGS, LAW
THAT’S WHY I CALLED LAURNGS, LAW ON THE INSPECTOR GENERAL TO FIND
ON THE INSPECTOR GENERAL TO FIND OUT HOW THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
OUT HOW THE INSPECTOR GENERAL WAS USED IN THAT MATTER.
WAS USED IN THAT MATTER. I WROTE A LETTER TO DORSEY
I WROTE A LETTER TO DORSEY SAYING MR. TRUMP SHOULD HAVE HIS
SAYING MR. TRUMP SHOULD HAVE HIS LICENSE SUSPENDED, BECAUSE HE
LICENSE SUSPENDED, BECAUSE HE REALLY HAS BEEN PLEADING FOR
REALLY HAS BEEN PLEADING FOR TERMS OF USE.
TERMS OF USE. >> I HAVE FORMER CHAIRMAN OF THE
>> I HAVE FORMER CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE, CHUCK GRASSLEE, YOU
COMMITTEE, CHUCK GRASSLEE, YOU KNOW P ENTERING -- TAKING HIS
KNOW P ENTERING -- TAKING HIS OWN POSITION IN THE BATTLE
OWN POSITION IN THE BATTLE BETWEEN DONALD TRUMP AND THE
BETWEEN DONALD TRUMP AND THE WHISTLEBLOWER, AND GUESS WHOSE
WHISTLEBLOWER, AND GUESS WHOSE SIDE HE’S ON.
SIDE HE’S ON. HE FOLLOWED THE WIND, AND OUGHT
HE FOLLOWED THE WIND, AND OUGHT TO BE MAKING.
TO BE MAKING. WE’RE KAFRLLY FOLLOWING UP ON
WE’RE KAFRLLY FOLLOWING UP ON THE FACTS.
THE FACTS. UNINFORMED SPECULATION WIELDED
UNINFORMED SPECULATION WIELDED BY POLITICIANS IS COUNTER TURG
BY POLITICIANS IS COUNTER TURG THE CONCERNS BETWEEN FIRST AND
THE CONCERNS BETWEEN FIRST AND SECONDHAND KNOWLEDGE WEREN’T
SECONDHAND KNOWLEDGE WEREN’T LEGAL ONES.
LEGAL ONES. WERE YOU SURPRISED THAT MR., BUT
WERE YOU SURPRISED THAT MR., BUT HE HAS BEEN A CHAMPION IN MY
HE HAS BEEN A CHAMPION IN MY TIME IN THE SENATE.
TIME IN THE SENATE. I’VE WATCHED ANYMORE DEFENSE OF
I’VE WATCHED ANYMORE DEFENSE OF WHINS AND WHISTLEBLOWER
WHINS AND WHISTLEBLOWER STATUTES.
STATUTES. THEY HE, UNLIKE SO MANY OTHERS,
THEY HE, UNLIKE SO MANY OTHERS, TO PUT COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY, AND
TO PUT COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY, AND HAS BEEN WILLING TO HAVE THE
HAS BEEN WILLING TO HAVE THE COURAGE TO STAND.
COURAGE TO STAND. >> HE WAS, AND THE CURRENT
>> HE WAS, AND THE CURRENT CHAIRMEN OF JUDICIARY.
CHAIRMEN OF JUDICIARY. IF YOU’VE MET CHUCK GRASSLEY,
IF YOU’VE MET CHUCK GRASSLEY, YOU KNOW.
YOU KNOW. WHEN HE STICKS UP ON THE
WHEN HE STICKS UP ON THE WEEKEND, IT’S TWUN.
WEEKEND, IT’S TWUN. IN THE DESIGN OF OUR DEMOCRACY,
IN THE DESIGN OF OUR DEMOCRACY, IT’S ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT
IT’S ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT METD.
METD. THEREFORE, IT IS AN OPPORTUNITY
THEREFORE, IT IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO
TO IN A WAY WE CAN CORRECT AND AN
IN A WAY WE CAN CORRECT AND AN ABUSE OF TAXPAYER RESOURCES.
ABUSE OF TAXPAYER RESOURCES. GOOD FOR CHUCK GRASSLEY ON THIS
GOOD FOR CHUCK GRASSLEY ON THIS ONE AND I HOPE THAT MORE OF MY
ONE AND I HOPE THAT MORE OF MY COLLEAGUES WILL RECOGNIZE THAT
COLLEAGUES WILL RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS REALLY A MATTER ABOUT
THIS IS REALLY A MATTER ABOUT THE INTEGRITY OF OUR SYSTEM OF
THE INTEGRITY OF OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT AND OUR DEMOCRACY AND
GOVERNMENT AND OUR DEMOCRACY AND SHOULD NOT BE A PARTISAN ISSUE.
SHOULD NOT BE A PARTISAN ISSUE. WE SHOULD ALL STAND TOGETHER
WE SHOULD ALL STAND TOGETHER SAYING THAT WE HAVE IN COMMON A
SAYING THAT WE HAVE IN COMMON A DESIRE TO KNOW THAT THERE IS
DESIRE TO KNOW THAT THERE IS INTEGRITY IN THESE SYSTEMS, AND
INTEGRITY IN THESE SYSTEMS, AND IN PARTICULAR WHEN IT RELATES TO
IN PARTICULAR WHEN IT RELATES TO OUR NATION’S SECURITY.
OUR NATION’S SECURITY. >> SENATOR HARRIS, PLEASE STAY
>> SENATOR HARRIS, PLEASE STAY WITH US, BECAUSE WHEN WE COME
WITH US, BECAUSE WHEN WE COME BACK AFTER THIS BREAK, I WANT TO
BACK AFTER THIS BREAK, I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT NEW REPORTING IN
ASK YOU ABOUT NEW REPORTING IN THE "NEW YORK TIMES" TONIGHT
THE "NEW YORK TIMES" TONIGHT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED TO
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED TO SHOOT IMMIGRANTS AT THE SOUTHERN
SHOOT IMMIGRANTS AT THE SOUTHERN BORDER, AND WHEN HE WAS TOLD
BORDER, AND WHEN HE WAS TOLD THAT WAS AGAINST THE LAW, HE
THAT WAS AGAINST THE LAW, HE SAID HE WANTED TO SHOOT THEM IN
SAID HE WANTED TO SHOOT THEM IN THE LEGS, AND HE WAS TOLD THAT
THE LEGS, AND HE WAS TOLD THAT WAS AGAINST THE LAW.
WAS AGAINST THE LAW. HE SAID HE WANTED TO BUILD A
HE SAID HE WANTED TO BUILD A MOAT AT THE BORDER, FILL IT WITH
MOAT AT THE BORDER, FILL IT WITH ALLIGATORS.
ALLIGATORS. LITTLE THE WILDEST, CRAZIEST
LITTLE THE WILDEST, CRAZIEST STUFF WE’VE HEARD FROM DONALD
STUFF WE’VE HEARD FROM DONALD TRUMP ABOUT THE BORDER.
