To try to get help enforcing subpoenas. Host nathan, why not hold a formal contempt vote . Why take this route. I think they are not mutually exclusive. In cases where several enforcement has been pursued in the courts, it has been proceeded by contempt votes in the house. The notion is that the house has a number of options when someone violates a subpoena or refuses to appear. Guest they are not mutually exclusive. In the cases where Civil Enforcement has been pursued in courts, its been preceded by contempt votes in the house. The house has a number of options when someone violates a subpoena and refuses to appear. The house could arrest the individual, could send out a sergeant in arms and put them somewhere in the capital. They could arrest them. That was used in the 19th and early 20th century. It hasnt been used since the early 20th century. The second option is to refer the matter to the department of justice for prosecution, which is what happens when a private citizen is in contempt of the ongress. If its part of the administration, they are being advised by the department of justice, they are not likely to prosecute. They have the option of holding them in contempt. They can be arrested by the u. S. Marshal, which is a serious matter, but one that would have been approved by a court. In these matters where the administration has refused to comply with the subpoena, there is the legal issue that is involved. The administration claims there is immunity for white house officials. There is no merit to that rgument. When there is a legal divide between the executive branch and the house, its appropriate to go to court to get a legal resolution. Thats why resorting to the courts is appropriate in that particular circumstance. Host that step taking place today, House Resolution 430 authorizing Committee Chairs to pursue civil action and enforcement of their subpoenas in federal court. We will be covering that on the house floor throughout the day on cspan. If that passes and this process starts to go through the federal courts, what would be the role of the general counsel in that process . Guest the general counsel usually is the litigating lawyer for the house. On occasion, the house has hired outside help. The general counsels office has directed that itigation. Its only been around for 40 or 50 years. Before that, the department of justice represented the house. Over time, you had this growing sense that the department of justice is an executive branch ntity and might be looking out for executive branch interests. The house and senate develop their own general counsel office. Host you were appointed by democratic speaker and served when both democrats and republicans occupied the white house. When should the legislative branch conduct oversight . Guest i dont think theres any time when they should not conduct oversight. Its an inherent response ability of the legislative branch to conduct oversight over all government operations, including the executive branch, including the judiciary. Theres multiple reasons for it. One of them, the obligation to inform the public. Theres a duty to inform that the house has. To get information to legislate, you have to have subpoena power. The Supreme Court has routinely upheld that notion. Its an inherent power of the legislature to subpoena witnesses and documents in order to get information necessary to fulfill the oversight function, in form and function, legislative function. The subpoenas are enforceable and they apply to everyone. Host you were appointed by a republican. Do you agree with that reading . Guest i do. Thats not particularly controversial. There is a real value in congressional oversight in terms of informing the public. In order for congress to do its job, one of the fundamental things that congress does is legislate, obviously, and in order to legislate, Congress Needs to be informed. The Supreme Court has said repeatedly that Congress Wont know everything it needs to know through its own devices. It needs to be able to compel others for information. In the senate, it may need particular information to go about deciding whether to confirm anemone. Obviously, impeachment is talked about these days. Whether to confirm an entity. Guest i want to make one thing clear. I was appointed by Speaker Pelosi the general counsel is a nonpartisan position. It represents individual members in any matter in which there position is implicated. I represented a number of republicans on issues they had. If they were sued by third parties, we defended them. Carrying out the institutional prerogatives of the house as opposed to a partisan matter. Host is there a more conservative way of interpreting those institutional prerogatives and more liberal ways of doing that . Is there no daylight between an general counsel appointed under a democrat or republican . Guest you come up with similar pproaches. The function is to protect the institution of the house. The constitution was set up to have checks and balances. There is a tension that exists that was intended between the legislative branch and executive branch. When the executive branch is disregarding the legislative branch, its incumbent upon the house to protect its interests. Therefore, the house general counsel is protecting the interests of the house as an institutional matter to take it to court and resolve legal issues and get information the house needs. Host is there a point where oversight can cross the line into harassment or fishing expeditions . Guest there can be a line, obviously, but its a far and remote line. There is a presumption that congress is acting within its official prerogatives. The courts respect that. Unless it is blatantly clear that there is no legitimate legislative purpose, no legitimate oversight purpose, subpoenas need to be enforced. Guest i do agree in terms of he legal matter. Does congress have the power to emand certain information . They have a very broad power to do that. Anything that could be relevant to their legislative work is something they can demand. Theres a separate question about what they should demand. We are seeing that play out to some degree now with President Trump insisting that special counsel mueller seemed to do a lot of work for a lot of time with a lot of witnesses on certain subjects. Isnt that enough . Democrats rightfully are saying we have the power to continue o ask questions. Republicans are saying you may ave that power, but its not a good use of resources, its a waste of time. Some republicans are making the argument that congress has the power to do this i agree with mr. Nathan on that. Congress certainly does have the power to do that. Ost William Pittard and irvin nathan, we are talking about congressional oversight and the work of the general counsel of the house. Republicans, 2027488001. Democrats, 2027488000. Ndependents, 2027488002. If you have questions about how these investigations are pursued, now would be a good time to call in. Richard is up first out of california. Democrat. Ood morning. Aller good morning, everyone. Fundamental checks and balances in the government is one of the most important aspects of the constitution. We had a revolution against taking just for that against a king just for that reason. We were not being represented and we were being ruled. The Mueller Report, he wouldnt ecommend indictments because of the fact that you are not supposed to indict a sitting president , which has not been ruled upon by the Supreme Court, as far as i know. Heres so much here in the Mueller Report. Unfortunately, mueller did not give a report on the eport. Someone appointed by trump who advocated himself in that position skewed, almost lied about the report and what it said. To give the impression that he had been exonerated, that is way far from the truth. Ollusion is not a crime. Collusion is a behavior that can lead to conspiracy. He said there wasnt enough to rove conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. They did not interview trump directly. Host lets take a second to talk about it. Guest i agree with a lot of hat the caller has said. I think, though, in response to bills point, its not a waste of time for the house to hold hearings to demonstrate what is in the Mueller Report and go further from it. Thats why we have the udiciary committee showing subpoenaed to don mcgahn and other fact witnesses. Its important to lay out for the American People whats in the Mueller Report. Theres a lot of misinformation caused by mr. Barrs statements, his letter and press conference. Its very important and the house has an Important Role to weigh out those facts to show the American People what is in the report, which is not an exoneration of the president. Host some of the underlying information from the Mueller Report the Judiciary Committee has been seeking for a while does the general counsel get involved in those kinds of deals . Guest it can be involved. Its up to the committee to decide who is going to represent it in connection with negotiations. I dont know exactly what the current general counsel the current general counsel is oing an excellent job. Hes extremely busy with a lot of litigation against this administration, which is telling third party not to comply with how subpoenas and efusing to enforce federal law in certain circumstances, including the obamacare statute, where the house is eeking to intervene to protect millions of americans. The house general counsel is extremely busy in litigation. I dont know that they are involved in the negotiations. Its possible. Its up to the chairman of the committee to decide whos going to represent them. Host when that litigation takes place, what court does this go to . What judge takes it up . Guest most certainly it will e here in federal court in d. C. , where the house or Relevant Committee will sue to enforce subpoenas. It was a savvy move following up on the point you just made about the negotiation yesterday and that if the house is suing to enforce a subpoena and the response on the others is a privilege exertion, we saw that play out in the fast and urious litigation. It went on for years and years. It took a long time to force the department of justice to urnover the documents. The court did eventually require producing most of those. T leaves some cleaner, quicker questions where congress can move to force subpoenas. The witnesses have flatly refused. Thats a question mr. Nathan itigated in the context of the u. S. Attorney firings 810 years ago now. Courts will feel more comfortable saying thats clearly improper, its illegal not to show up in the face of that subpoena. Host your recent column from the Washington Post from the end of may trump has the clock on his side. Do the courts care how long the cases take . A lot of the members of Congress Want that decision as soon as possible. Guest some courts do. In the recent case where the Rump Administration told their accountants not to provide information, the district judge in the District Of Columbia expedited the proceeding. He consolidated the motion with the merits of the matter will be heard in its entirety sooner. He issued a decision with a week thats within a week. He house has to move expeditiously as well so that there is a need for urgency on this matter. To demonstrate to the courts i hope the courts will recognize that the house needs this information now, not after the 2020 election. Court proceedings can take a long time. The judges have a number of ways to shorten the periods for briefing, to have oral arguments, to eliminate the need for life witnesses through affidavit and a number of other devices. They can move quickly. This administration is attempting to run out the clock. They are raising objections that have been resolved by the courts. There is no arguments that the white house aides they cannot object on a question by question basis. They have to appear and answer questions. They are refusing to do it. They are hoping to delay the court proceedings. That will be the test for the house and for the judiciary to move things along expeditiously so the American People can get information in time to make decisions about whats going on in the congress. Host north carolina. Republican line. Sue, good morning. Caller thank you for taking my all. I was watching cspan this morning. The democrats dont like the epublicans to bring up anything about this mess started when hillary bought and paid for that dossier. The best president s weve had were kennedy, Ronald Reagan and onald trump. Host that is sue in north carolina. This is george out of new jersey. An independent. Aller great show. With these hearings taking place, it is so obvious that barr is committing perjury and obstruction. Right there is the main problem the American People are choosing sides in a game of liars. With this clear perjury going on in front of the American People, we are doing nothing about it they have the right to arrest these people for perjury. Why dont they do it . Is it for their pensions that they dont do this . At least make an effort to uphold your oath to arrest people breaking the law in front of everybodys faces. Guest congress does refer witnesses from time to time to the department of justice for investigation and potential prosecution when Congress Things the witness has lied to a committee thinks the witness has lied to a committee or obstructed the committees work. Roger clemens was referred for allegedly lying about performanceenhancing drugs use. He was later acquitted. It can play out that way. Of course, where is the attorney general of the united states, the head of the department of justice is accused of lying, obstructing, you have the difficult situation it would be shocking to think the Department Justice will be prosecuting their head guest it is an executive function to arrest and prosecute individuals. Ormally, if perjury is committed before congress, there is usually a referral to the department of justice and they make a decision. Hey can prosecute. It is a felony. Its also a contempt of congress to engage in perjury before congress. If the perjury is blatant, if the disrespect for the house or the senate is so obvious, the house and senate have internal powers to punish. They can hold the individual in contempt, they can have a earing in the chamber of the house to find that there was perjury, demonstrating disrespect and contempt for the congress. After a finding of contempt, the sergeant and arms could arrest sergeant in arms could arrest the person. F they absolve themselves of perjury or Congress Ends they certainly have the power to call out perjury. Ive seen a number of members who also said whove also said some witnesses are not being truthful. Its a very rare thing. Ost when is the last time that they enforced that . Guest in the 1920s. The teapot dome situation, the relatives of the attorney general were subpoenaed. They were arrested. Hen they were arrested, they could file a petition to the courts to have their arrest challenged. That went all the way to the Supreme Court. The congress was vindicated in that case. They said the arrest was appropriate because of the refusal to comply with the subpoena. The person had to remain in jail until they appeared. The same would apply to any blatant disrespect for the subpoena, which includes, in my view, perjury. You come and blatantly lie, that shows disrespect for the house. Host grover is next in virginia. A democrat. Good morning. Caller there should be some ype of way the senators or congressman they work for he people. Why do we pay them if they refuse to answer our questions . Guest that goes to the fundamental frustration that congress often has with the dministration. It flips from time to time. When i was in the house, the house was controlled by republicans and the administration was controlled by a democrat. The house was quite frustrated by the responses we were getting from the Obama Administration then. Of course, now you are seeing a democratic untold house quite frustrated with the responses from the republican administration. Host does the senate have a general counsel . Guest yes it does. Host how often does the house general counsel work with the senate general counsel . Guest they are very collegial. There is communication between the two. There is a longstanding republican mayor and a longstanding democrat. When the senate switches, they just switch nameplates on their offices. They dont even change offices. And they work very well together. In my opinion and in my experience, they work well with the general counsel of the house. They are a repository of information in history. Host does a judge normally give more deference perhaps to a case in which the house and senate general counsel come together and argue . Guest it doesnt happen that often because the senate doesnt generally get the authority to go to court as frequently as the house does. Host why not . Guest , because of the roles of the senate which require a greater majority to authorize because of the rules of the senate, which require a greater majority to authorize litigation. Because of the organization in the house, when the Majority Party is there, they can authorize the house general counsel to litigate. So you find much more litigation conducted by the house. Though, there have been cases where both the house and senate have come together, and i think the courts do give great deference to that situation. Guest one circumstance in which you would see a role for the house and the senate, if the house has issued a subpoena and is looking to enforce its own subpoena. And the other half of congress doesnt have a role, one place both houses certainly have the role is when you talk about impeachment. I go back to the previous callers questionnaire