democrats that it s no longer about if this is good politics and what does it mean for 2020, but some view this as this is sort of a moral stance they need to take to prevent a presidency from running amuck in their view. nancy pelosi will make a statement at 5:00 p.m. her staff confirming. if they officially open an impeachment inquiry or use the power of inherent contempt. how does that change their ability to get information, documentation or call witnesses before various committees? it doesn t change it that much. in the sense that you know, congress can issue subpoenas now. it can call witnesses now and the executive branch can defy them. there is some you know, additional ability if you decide to use the inherent contempt power to try to do something quickly. but by and large, congress powers are what they are.
defying subpoena after subpoena. but there is some recourse which is the contempt power. basically to go to court. to go to court to force the disclosure of the documents and to force the director of national intelligence to produce whatever this report is and who the whistleblower is and what his or her complaints are. gloria, listen to adam schiff when he told anderson cooper about the whistleblower. the dni acknowledged that this involves someone apparently outside of the authority of the dni. someone above the dni. there aren t that many in that category. and they also suggested that there may be privilege issues here which means that it would have to rov communications of the president or people around him. that is pretty significant. it is. it is very mysterious. it is it could potentially be significant. and the question you ask after that is, well, what are you hiding? what are you trying to hide here? if there the suggestion that
by held in contempt of congress? you are charged with contempt of congress? or is there some contempt power to allow committee chairman to then go to court in order to enforce subpoenas or somewhere in between? you probably understand the legal more than i do. i ll give you a little reaction. what the chairman is trying to argue is the civil contempt process is contempt because it gets them out of congress where the letters are exchanged and into court. if the doj lose, there s a court order to hand it over. i think we ll play a little sound for and you toss it back to both of you. there have been times where the congress explicitly said criminal contempt. let s look at the flashback to that. eric holder today became the
voted today on this contempt move. these officials, especially lawyers, but really anyone responsible doesn t want to be held in contempt. it is a serious step you ve taken. you ve also stopped short of criminal contempt as you ve said. there is a break-through and providing evidence to you. why did you stop short of criminal contempt for mr. mcgahn? we did not stop short of contempt for mr. mcgahn. criminal contempt. well, the resolution of powers contempt, civil or criminal. if he does not come my with our subpoena promptly, we will to go court to force his compliance. and we use the contempt power. and we will use it on mr. mcgahn or any other witness. hope hicks or eddie donaldson if they don t come my with the subpoenas and give us the
using the inherent contempt. but the attorney who is are outstanding attorneys think that that would be in the courts for a longer period of time because it s not tried for such a listening time. danny? i love the inherent contempt power. the sergeant of arms who sounds like a character in a play from the 18th century goes out and arrests folks, maybe congress folks in the office refusing to come to the hill and brings them forcibly to capitol hill. realistically this is not a power that is likely to have a lot of effect. really, i don t think there s going to be any successfuls where they send this individual out. i don t know what he would carry. a revolver or a saber to enforce it. congress has three real sources of power, contempt and a third inherent contempt and burden falls on the sergeant of arms