was under investigation, issue a blanket refusal to produce no witnesses, to produce no documents, to produce no e-mails, texts. yes, it is true that there are legitimate grounds for dispute about each perhaps certain of the documents that the house has sought. but the idea that it is a legitimate exercise of executive authority to shut down cooperation completely can i just point out how differents that from t s thathi mueller report? we re going to let people testify, we re going to let them talk to mueller, we re going to provide all the documents. don t think they re not directly related. of course they re related because then they read it. why did we do that? maybe we shouldn t have done that. so now they re taking the
now what you get from the judiciary committee is the case for why the president should be impeached according to constitutional scholars, experts in the law and people who can really explain to the public what you get as a civic education into how that fact pattern fits into what might be considered impeachable offenses. why the president holding up money for ukraine could be an impeachable offense. why him turning the government into a force to try to investigate a political opponent could be considered and impeachable offense and conditioning one on the other might be an impeachable offense and the other thing they re looking at obstruction of justice with the blanket refusal of the white house to put forward witnesses and documents that the house has asked for, nome in this case, also in other cases including in the mueller investigation. you know, jonathan, it s a little more than a week since the first wrapped in washington,
she should just refuse to go along. robert, did you ever consider or discuss with president clinton at the time or your legal team the possibility of essentially a blanket refusal to cooperate in any way with the impeachment inquiry back then? i cannot discuss any conversations i had with the president. but i can say that i never had that, and i never heard that that was a possibility. that would have been a very bad idea politically. and don t forget we had the election coming up. that s right. and secondly, it would be very close if not already there a crime. so i think the answer to that is no with the understanding i
upholding the payments was possible unlawful, the criminal withdrawal to doj, there are red flags going off all over the system in the lead up to the system. what do you make of that? i make of it that those who were part of the scheme to corrupt our relationship with ukraine in order to advance a political agenda, to interfere with an election, i take it they re in deep trouble. and thank goodness there are career and even some political employees who will be willing to stand up to that and be voluntary witnesses. the claim by the white house counsel that a blanket refusal to cooperate with the congressional oversight is just simply preposterous. and i hope that some republicans will think about how they would feel if a president, say, elizabeth warren or whoever, came into office knowing that she should be subject to no congressional oversight because
she should be subject to no congressional oversight because she should just refuse to go along. robert, did you ever consider or discuss with president clinton at the time or your legal team the possibility of essentially a blanket refusal to cooperate in any way with the impeachment inquiry back then? i cannot discuss any conversations i had with the president. but i can say that i never had that, and i never heard that that was a possibility. that would have been a very bad idea politically, and don t forget we had an election coming up. and secondly, you know it would be very close if not already there a crime. so i think the answer to that is no with the understanding i