about with adam schiff, chairman of the house intelligence committee, who joins us now. there are various interpretations of what mueller said today, one of which is that he was essentially calling on congress to do their constitutional duty and begin impeachment proceedings against the president. is that how you interpreted what he said? again, i think mueller was more than capable of asserting that if that s the conclusion that he had reached, that the president should be impeached. but, no, he said, this is now in the hands of congress. and i think that leaves it open to congress to determine whether to investigate this through its oversight powers, whether to initiate impeachment proceedings. there were really two things bob mueller was not prepared to say. he was not prepared to say that we were able to exonerate the president. he reiterated once again that while he didn t have the power to indict, he did have the power to say that we could not find sufficient evidence of guilt.
in order to enforce this, they would first ask doj to enforce it. doj would not do that. so the house can go litigate soul contempt on its own. in the district court. my prediction they would lose. we talking about is very important for viewers to appreciate about imperial congress. congress is pushing beyond that out of boundaries. it is oversight powers and impeachment powers which a letter acknowledging their doing. i think they would lose. i think it would be thrown out this way. paul: they were a couple of other cases of subpoenas with white house challenge them donald trump challenge one about the president s, the trump organization bank with deutsche bank and another by khis accounting records. and the lower courts this week sided with congress on the subpoenas. does congress have a stronger case on those issues than it did with don mcgahn? t out think so. it s a somewhat different case because they are, we really are
talking about exceeding their oversight powers. first of all paul: but david, the lower courts did not buy that argument. they said the does need to be a legislative purpose here. they have the run of this records. it s wrong.he decision piece, cthe supreme court teaching is very clear. both in the 19th century and the 20th century in a case called watkins it has to do with house committee on un-american activities. you need a legislate of purpose. the legislative purpose here terms of getting the president s tax returns is pre- tax at best and frankly is no more than political harassment. it is a different case than the one involving don mcgahn or robert mueller but i think they will not do well. actually, i m optimistic they will do well in the d.c. circuit but worst-case scenario they are losing in the supreme court. it really is better for congress as an institution to be doing that in the long run but i m afraid the house democrats are not thinking in the long run.
enforce it. the house could litigate civil contempt on its own in the district court. my prediction, they would lose. we re talking about, paul, it s very important for viewers to appreciate, about imperial congress. congress is pushing beyond the outer boundaries, its oversight powers and its impeachment powers, acknowledging they re doing. i think they would lose. paul: now, there were a couple other cases with subpoenas where the white house challenged them, donald trump challenged them, one about the trump organization s banker, deutsche bank, other about his accounting records and the lower courts this week sided with congress on those subpoenas. does the congress have a stronger case on those issues than it did with mcgahn? i don t think so. it s a somewhat different case because there we really are talking about exceeding their oversight powers. paul: but david, the lower courts didn t buy that argument.
this. we re going to keep winning in court here. we re going to get these documents eventually. i hope the message is loud and clear to the trump administration, it s time to cooperate with our oversight powers and start producing documents but also having witnesses come and testify, too. adam, it was quite striking that in the judge s opinion, he twice cited the washington case earlier this week, cited the judge by name in that case, specifically in effect said you know, thanks for the help in doing some of the legal, the same legal scholarship. absolutely. it was very clear that as soon as the washington opinion came down, the counsel for the house of representatives alerted him to it. so he knew. so the court, the decision comes out in d.c. and the lawyers for the house in that case immediately alert the new york judge you might want to take a look at there. within moments it hit the docket. of course we alerted him, too. there s news everywhere. everyone watches msnbc.