MSNBC "All in with Chris Hayes" - Transcript: "Former Vice President Al Gore on impeachment."

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

HAYES: The thrust of the Mueller report with regard to Lewandowski is summarized in this heading from the report. The President asked Corey Lewandowski to deliver a message to Sessions to curtail the Special Counsel investigation. And that was a big portion of today`s hearing. Reading from the Mueller report, "Lewandowski recalled the President told him that if Sessions did not meet with him, Lewandowski should tell Sessions he was fired." When asked about this, he did not contradict it. Lewandowski said he thought it was a joke. The second thing and really the bigger problem for Democrats is that Lewandowski is pretty far down the list of the most important witnesses in this matter. And just today, there were two witnesses that House Judiciary Committee called who were not there because the White House is currently asserting that they can basically stop anyone they want to from delivering testimony to a congressional oversight body. Joining me now, fresh from today`s hearing, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, Democrat of Texas, a member of the House Judiciary Committee. Congresswoman, what was the goal of today`s hearing? And did you feel you accomplished it?

REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE, (D) TEXAS: We absolutely did. And the goal, of course, was to take the American people and to take the record down the journey of obstruction. As you well know, Chris, the Third Article of Impeachment for Richard Nixon was obstructing congress. Now, that was not necessarily our start. We thought that Mr. Lewandowski would come and tell the truth. He was, in fact, in living color the story that was told in the Mueller report. The American people haven`t read the Mueller report. They got to see a living character who was actively engaged -- although he was not an employee of the United States government, he was not an employee of the White House, but he was used by the president to sidestep the laws of the land. And that, I believe, throughout the entire day was very clear. It was very clear in his use of the letter that was given to us on the 16, that clearly was inappropriate because the confidentiality provisions that they referred to has to do with counsel to the president on making decisions of policy. To go and tell someone to change the Mueller investigation to elections in the future are not policy, it is obstruction. And we clearly watched Mr. Lewandowski as well create a pathway for the story of whether or not the president of the United States was trying to obstruct justice, which was all about what Director Mueller had in volume two. Remember now, he said I cannot exonerate him. And it was all about the issues and the facts of obstruction.

HAYES: There was a moment where he expressly invoked privilege to not answer a question about whether he discussed a pardon. I thought it was kind of an interesting tell. I want to play that moment and get your reaction. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MARY SCANLON, (D) PENNSYLVANIA: Has the president ever offered you a pardon?

LEWANDOWSKI: Again, the White House has directed not to disclose the substance of any discussions with the president or his advisers to protect the executive branch confidentiality…

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: What do you make of that?

LEE: well, I make he was well briefed by the White House and issues that he could answer, that had nothing to do with advising the president on the question of governance, it had to do whether you asked -- you asked for or you were given the idea that you could get a pardon. That`s why we believe that there`s several instances in which Mr. Lewandowski can be held in contempt He used this privilege given to him by a White House counsel in a letter that was inappropriate. And I think -- I really do think he was a living color witness to see the constant obstruction of justice, not by him, but by the White House.

HAYES: OK, but here`s the problem, right, I mean, there were two witnesses called. The White House has asserted extremely broad power to stop witnesses, even people that are not currently working for the administration, to testify at all. The privilege that they are invoking here is extremely controversial in legal circles, in some cases they`re talking about blanket immunity, you can`t talk to anyone we don`t want you to talk to. That`s the fundamental issue. Like you can`t do this unless you break that and the question is how do you break that?

LEE: Well, you know, Chris, you`re absolutely right. We are reminded of Speaker Pelosi`s words, investigation, litigation and legislation. We legislated last week with the impeachment investigation, we`re in the courts. We insist that we have the right to question Mr. Porter, Mr. Dearborn, Mr. McGahn. And we believe with the impeachment investigation we`re hoping positively that we`ll prevail in court not later but sooner than later, that the courts will see that we have nothing but obstruction not from the particular witnesses, but from the president of the United States I think that was more than clear. And you well know, because not only was he obstructing as instructed by the White House, but he launched his senate campaign in New Hampshire. He launched a hashtag 2020 -- I mean absolutely absurd. We cannot have witnesses disrespecting article 1 body, which is the United States Congress

HAYES: There were several calls for him to be found in contempt. I read former a congressman, Brad Miller, saying if you acted like this in court you`d be in jail cooling your heels. Are you going to find him in contempt? It adjourned. I guess that`s the chair`s call, but it adjourned without that. But, again, you keep saying you can`t have this, but yet that`s what you did have.

LEE: I believe we will be reviewing the record. And I frankly believe that Mr. Lewandowski has been in contempt of congress. There were questions that he could answer There were questions that were not applicable to the confidentiality protection, and there were questions that he knew full well with the truth. And the reason is, he had it in his book, "Let Trump be Trump." He said it over and over again in television interviews. One interview he said he had nothing to do, no one ever told him to contact Attorney General Sessions. And then here he is sort of alluding that he cannot answer that question because of privilege. Well, why didn`t he say the same thing that he said in his interviews. I think it was more today than people might imagine. Again, President Nixon`s third article of impeachment was obstructing congress. Now we have a very colorful fellow, giving a colorful journey today, of just how deep that obstruction is. I don`t think the American people -- I know they`re busy, they`re working, but I think if they get bits and pieces of this, they can say this is not the way you run a government or a country. The president should have those individuals no longer in the White House having the ability to come before the Article 1 body, who has a right to proceed under the impeachment investigation for high crimes and misdemeanors, or abuse of power, and answer the questions and use the privilege only appropriately when you are counseling the president for something good dealing with the governance of the United States. We cannot be undermined in the investigatory process.

HAYES: All right, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, thank you very much

LEE: Thanks for having me, Chris.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source