Almost certainly appeal to the court of appeals which is the intermediate and perhaps even seek to take it to the supreme court. One thing that does hold your thoughts. This is the ranking republican on the committee, doug collins. Then we understand maybe its the democrats who have something to be worried about. Maybe they dont like what was in the Mueller Report and maybe they dont want to continue to ask questions about it. Ill take your questions. The white house has been fighting subpoenas, requests for information. Do you have any concern theyre eroding your colleagues ability to investigate . I dont think so. Theyre going to do what they need to do, as past administrations have done, including president obama and others. They fight subpoenas when they feel like they have made accommodations or not. One concern i have and the chairman was out here talking about going straight to contempt. Thats typically a twoweek process. You typically goent go straight to contempt. You work with the agency, try to make accommodations and anyone held in contempt, its been a long process. This democratic majority seems to be impatient. They dont want to wait, they dont want to ask proper questions. What are they hiding . Why are they so concerned . Because they hate this president and they want to keep the circus going and make the American People believe theyre doing impeachment. Is there sorry, i couldnt hear. Beyond the president , is there anything wrong with staff attorneys questioning witnesses . There is no precedent for this. After 206 years of this committee where we were able to do our job, and this is where it gets interesting. The only two areas even the chairman talks about is in impeachment. My chairman wants the American People to believe by citing impeachment, when in reality, they dont want to bring impeachment. If he would take the accommodations the attorney general has made, work with the attorney general to find better ways instead of rushing to have a press release, rushing to have our committee, and trampling minority rights of this committee. Thats been amazing to me. Yesterday was a travesty in our committee and our chairman should be ashamed. Whats wrong with having staff attorneys question . The staff questioning is irrelevant in the sense of what theyre wanting to do, but why does the chairman think so little of his lawyers on his committee that he wouldnt take 30 minutes for himself or others to ask questions. Hes got great attorneys. Its a slap in the face of this own people. Will you fight efforts were going to continue, if the chairman wants to continue down that path, my questions are going to be, what is your hurry, have you looked for acc accommodati accommodations, have you tried to work with the department of justice, or simply every time you didnt get what you want, which has been the pattern, this chairman runs to make a subpoena, a contempt charge. Its almost like theyre daring to go to court instead of doing proper legislative oversight. Thats a travesty for this country. Thank you so much. There was the ranking republican, doug collins, with a spirited defense of the attorney generals decision not to appear before that committee. Jackie, i want to ask you a question here. We were talking about how strong the words and the criticisms coming from the democrats here, talking about a danger to american democracy, a danger to coequal branches of government. Is there a political backing for that position . I just wonder. Listen, they have a role here in congress. You can see the angle theyre coming from, but i just wonder if that will strike some even in their own caucus as hyperbole here . Do they have the backing for that view of whats going on here . In terms of in the public, or in terms of the congress . In the public. In the public, i think among the base, yes. I think this is more. If you listen to jerry nad rr, this is about the battle of the branches. This is about what congress is there for. Jerry nadler said if they dont stand up to the white house, theyll relinquish the ability to stand up to white houses in the future. Theyre trying to make this a real constitutional question rather than get mired in the politics. Now, reality, this is mired in politics. We have seen this between congresses and president s over and over again. The bush administration, the obama administration. This is what happens when you have divided government and you have passions as high as they are right now. So the question, though, becomes on the political angle, when is it pressing it too far, jackie . Because David Chalian last hour mentioned our brandnew cnn polling. It does show something that should be a warning to democrats. 44 of americans say democrats are doing too much in terms of investigating the president. And this is all wrapped up in that, right . Too much. 28 say theyre doing enough. 25 say theyre doing too little. Is that a sort of a blinking red light for democrats here . Yes, the majority of americans in this poll do want them to get the full unredacted Mueller Report. They do want them to investigate if the president obstructed justice. But they think overall, dems are maybe doing too much here. Theres a reezb we were talking about a 2 trillion infrastructure bill earlier this week. Democrats know, particularly Speaker Nancy Pelosi knows, that particularly democrats that were the majority makers, those from trump districts that elected trump, need Something Else to take home. Theyre not as entrenched in the Mueller Report, in the mueller investigation. So yeah, they need to be able to walk and chew gum and, you know, get wins on the board for these members that were elected not to go after the president but to try to get things done in a divided washington. Yeah. Manu raju on the hill standing outside that Committee Hearing with one of the members from the hearing who had some of the most explosive comments, the representative ted lieu. Manu. Yeah, thanks, jim. Ted lieu, congressman who is on the how Judiciary Committee. Talk to me about what the Justice Department is saying just now, saying look, why cant you have you guys are attorneys, you can question a witness. Why do you need to have staff attorneys insist on having staff attorneys question when its something you can easily do yourselves . We definitely could do those ourselves and we will when barr comes in after we subpoena him, but we also want staff counsel. These are complicated issues. Obstruction of justice is a complicated issue. Issues related to conspiracy are complicated and its nothing extraordinary were asking. When i was on the House Judiciary Committee last year under republican control, there were numerous witnesses from the department of justice questioned by staff counsel. Are you worried, now you move down this process of contempt. Its going to take time. You may not get the answers you were hoping to get at todays hearing. It will take time, but i dont think it will take that much time. Woe can control our contempt proceedings within congress, and once contempt passes off the house floor, not only can we litigate, but we also get inherent contempt powers that the courts upheld, including the ability to impose fines on the person without having to go to the courts. Do you want fines levied against anyone who doesnt comply with the subpoenas . Absolutely not, but well go there. Is this something that is seriously considered . Ultimately, we have to enforce what the framers wanted, which is coequal branches of government, checks and balances on the executive branch. If they continue to ignore congress, hide from the American People the truth, then were going to use all the tools at our disposal. One tool is impeachment. Democratic leadership has been hesitant in going this route. Do you think they should have changed their approach and start to more seriously consider the prospects of impeachment. If the Trump Administration wants impeachment, theyre doing a good job of pushing the democrats there because we want to first gather facts to decide if we should impeach. If we cant gather facts, then were going to launch an article iii impeachment under what nixon happened to him, article iii was obstructed congress. If we cant gather facts, that may be the only tool we have left and well use it if we have no other tools left. You seem pretty confident youre going to go that right. Have you gotten assurances from jerry nadler or nancy pelosi . Thats my personal opinion, but its unifying the caucus. You understand that you cannot have donald trump and the executive branch blowing off congress, ignoring congress. So if they push us to go there, we are going to go there. Congressman ted lieu saying its unifying the caucus, the talk of impeachment in light of this noncompliance of the administration. Guys. Thats interesting. An example of the members perhaps overruling the leadership on that question. Yeah. Its a great point. We, of course, manu gets the important interview right there. We appreciate it very much. We have laura jarrett, just before we go, because i want to get your reaction to what the members of the Judiciary Committee and the broader Democratic Caucus seem to be threatening. How does the Justice Department respond . If i heard nadler correctly, he said were not afraid to use our inherent contempt authority. I take that to mean using a sergeant in arms to get the attorney general. Were a long way away from that. They havent even subpoenaed him to appear yet, but its quite a threat to make, i think, at this stage, especially when its really about form over substance. Its really about the issue of just having the staff question him. Thats where the stalemate it and its kind of a constitutional stalemate. Theres no provision in the constitution that says members of congress get to, you know, investigate in this way. So its really going to be an interesting question to see whether the courts want to weigh in on this and how they come out. Kind of untested ground. Can i ask you to put a button on it . Can they hold barr, are they on good strong legal ground to hold barr in contempt for not appearing at the hearing, the format of which they wanted with this lawyer . He would show up if they had changed it back to the regular format of the five minutes of questioning and not the 30 minutes additional for a staff attorney to question. Can they still hold him in contempt by saying you have to appear at the form of hearing we want . Well, they would have to subpoena him first. They havent even done that. They were having all sort of these background conversations. The first step would be the subpoena. If he flouts the subpoena and still doesnt show, then the contempt vote would come. Even on that, i dont think theyre on necessarily 100 firm ground there because as i mentioned, you know, there hasnt been a whole lot of precedent for having a senior cabinet official come and have to take staff questions outside of impeachment proceedings. So theyre going to have to show why this is so necessary, given the fact that there are attorneys on that panel that can easily question, and this whole idea about five minutes, they get to set the rules on how long. The attorneys, they could pick the best attorney on the panel and have them go the whole time. So i think thats a hard argument to make. Well, by the way, majorities have set the rules on a lot of consequential things, even for instance, the number of votes necessary to confirm justices, just a point of order there. Thanks very much. Still to come this hour, his sacrifice saved lives. We know that. North Carolina Police are calling one student a hero after witnessing say he rushed a gunman who opened fire on a University Class room. Well honor the life of riley howell ahead. Plus, were cruiseship passengers and moviegoers exposed to the measles . Health officials raising concerns about the disease, new ones. And a new cnn poll drops and the president s Approval Rating on the economy jumps. Good news for the president. Is it bad news for his 2020 challengers . We know if you found one crappie you may have found a thousand. We know the joy of getting your boots back in the mud. We know the journey can be more rewarding than the destination. We know the great outdoors. We love the great outdoors. Bass pro shops and cabelas. Stop by today for huge savings on the gear you need and the brands you trust. Plus free 2 day shipping at basspro. Com and cabelas. Com. Hey allergy muddlers. Achoo . Do your sneezes turn heads . Try zyrtec. It starts working hard at hour one. And works twice as hard when you take it again the next day. Zyrtec muddle no more. But how do i know if im im getting a good deal . I tell truecar my zip and which car i want and truecar shows the range of prices people in my area actually paid for the same car so i know if im getting a great price. This is how car buying was always meant to be. This is truecar. Ensure max protein. To give you the protein you need with less of the sugar you dont. straining ill take that. cheers 30 grams of protein and 1 gram of sugar. Ensure max protein. In two great flavors. Shes doing it again. No cover up spray here. Cheaper aerosols can cover up odors, burying them in a flowery fog. Switch to febreze air effects febreze eliminates even the toughest odors from the air. Freshen up, dont cover up. Febreze is now one of the most dangerous men in washington, d. C. You know, i just have to say as a former police chief that it was painful and disgraceful to see the nations top cop abandon his responsibilities. Chicken barr should have shown up today and answered questions. He was afraid of barry burke. He was afraid of norm eisen, an attorney general picked for his legal acumen and his abilities would not have been fearful of any other attorneys questions him for 30 minutes. He can run but he cannot hide. Very strong words from the democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee talking about bill barrs noshow at a hearing today. Joining me is zoe lofgren of california. Thanks very much for taking the time this morning. Sure. Let me ask you, you heard those words here. A danger to democracy. You heard the chairman jerry nadler talk about the need to respond to the possibility of the president acting like a dictator here. Do you share those concerns today . Or is that hyperbole . Well, when attorney general barr refused to show up, it was improper, and i think it was arrogant. I think of graver concern, honestly, is the refusal to provide to the Judiciary Committee the full Mueller Report, which has been subpoenaed, along with the evidence underlying that report. We have a right to see that material. The attorney general, we subpoenaed it. The attorney general has said simply no. The other thing of grave concern is the president s comments that hes going to have the members of the administration refuse to comply with any subpoenas issued by the house of representatives. Thats not the way our system of government works. Is that a danger to u. S. Democracy in your view . Actually, i think it is a very serious problem because the executive branch for the last more than 200 years going back to the days of george washington, has been subject to oversight by the congress. Thats fundamental to our system of checks and balances. And so for the president to say hes going to break that and hes not going to allow subpoenas to be responded to is extraordinary and its improper, and it does threaten our system of checks and balances. Let me ask you this. The question now really is how far are you willing to go . When we heard the chairman jerry nadler talk about using all of the committees powers here to compel bill barr to testify, among those powers is sending the sergeant in arms to arrest him and brng him before your committee. Would you support going to those lengths to get the attorney general to testify . I would be very surprised if that occurs. Obviously, there is a process that needs to be engaged in. We have not subpoenaed the attorney general to appear. We merely asked him to come. Obviously, we want to pursue that, and we issue a subpoena. If he still refuses to comply, we would engage in a mediation to see if we could come to an agreement. If he still refuses to respond, then you would have to gesee what further remedies are available. But as i say, the more serious problem today is the refusal to provide the documents that already have been subpoenaed. Let me just Say Something about the attorney general. I didnt get to see all of the testimony in the senate because i was busy in hearings and work here in the house, but i did have a chance to look at some of it, and really, i think in many instances, he was not very candid, maybe not even honest, in his testimony. So im not so sure im very interested in what he has to say since he doesnt necessarily tell the truth. Are you saying the attorney general lied before the committee . Well, i tell you what. He certainly needs to explain why he lied to Charlie Crist when he came before the house and said that he had no idea what mr. Mueller thought when he already had mr. Muellers letter. I cant understand how that is anything other than false. You know, i would like to hear his explanation. Let me ask you this, because ted lieu as well said that the only recourse may be impeachment proceedings. Our colleague manu raju pressed him on this. Against barr . Thats a move that they had not been willing to make, but he said members of the caucus might support that move. Would you support impeachment proceedings against this president . Or against mr. Barr . He was talking about against the president as a process. What you have been referencing there more broadly, this administration refusal to provide documents, witnesses, et cetera. First, lets start with the president. I would ask you about barr as well, but would you support the beginning of impeachment proceedings. I dont think were there yet. We have further discussions that need to occur between the house and the executive branch. But im sure you know that article iii of the nixon impeachment was nixons refusal to provide information that the congress legitimately had a right to see. So i dont want to see our president marching down that road. And thats exactly the point that congressman lieu made. Talking about article iii and cited the nixon