MSNBC "All In with Chris Hayes" - Transcript: Interview with Rep. Joe Neguse

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

One of the members sponsoring this legislation is Congressman Joe Neguse, a Democrat from Colorado. He served as an impeachment matter in the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump and he joins me now.

There`s a lot to digest here because there`s a bunch of moving pieces. So, let`s start first with the White House`s stepping in to say to the National Archives there`s nothing here, go ahead. What does that mean? What`s the legal impact and significance of that?

REP. JOE NEGUSE (D-CO): Well, good evening, Chris. It`s good to be with you. It`s a big development. I think the White House made the right call and a prudent step forward to ultimately direct the National Archives to disregard any spurious claim of intellect -- excuse me, of executive privilege, which you know, I think would have been intellectually dishonest under these circumstances given as the White House said, what these documents purportedly may very well show which is the subversion of the peaceful transfer of power, and ultimately conduct that is clearly relevant to the events of January 6.

So, I think it`s an import And step forward and obviously a sea change from, you know, the spurious claims of executive privilege that we were so become so accustomed to under the Trump administration from the White House.

[20:25:10]

HAYES: Does this mean -- this may be an operational question that you don`t have the answer to, but I`ll ask it anyway. It`s like -- it seems to me like they should just furnish it. And if they want to litigate post facto, fine, but there should be no delay here. I certainly agree with you. With respect to the documents, I don`t think that there`s any question that that would be the logical step forward, and I suspect that the select committees imploring the National Archives to do precisely that. We`ll of course see whether or not litigation gets in the way.

HAYES: OK, that brings us now to these four people who are -- who are defying the subpoenas as of now, two of them engaged with the select committee, two of them Bannon and Scavino, basically just thumbing their nose at it. Bannon, I think, wrote a letter -- you know, Bannon is a particularly ridiculous case. He`s not part of the executive. He was an unpaid advisor. He had received a pardon for a very serious charge of fraud that he was facing by the President.

And the President is no longer the president, the guy that he was advising. There`s like zero good faith executive privilege claim here. And the question, I guess, is, do you let him try to run out the clock in court?

NEGUSE: The answer is no. I mean, look, I agree with you, Chris. Obviously, it`s absurd and ridiculous the letter that the Mr. Bannon`s lawyer, submitted to the Select Committee. It is consistent with the wholesale obstruction that we experienced and witnessed firsthand during the Trump administration, as you`ll remember, and I was a member and still am a member of the House Judiciary Committee, and we saw the Trump administration play this exact same playbook time and time again as they stonewalled congressional investigations.

But what has changed, of course, and what is different now is that the Department of Justice is, you know, obviously, you have an attorney general at the Head of Department of Justice who I think cares a great deal about co equal branches of government and separation of powers and ensuring the constitutional prerogatives of the Congress are respected.

I mean, at the end of the day, if witnesses can defy subpoenas without consequence, then congressional oversight really no longer exists. And it`s hard to make the case that Congress is a co-equal branch of government under -- in that circumstance. So, you know, I take very seriously the Select Committee`s language that was in the press release today with respect to potentially pursuing criminal contempt of Congress, a referral to the Department of Justice, which, you know, we`ll have to -- time will tell as to whether or not the Department of Justice under Attorney General Garland will ultimately implement that referral and pursue it.

But my -- many of my colleagues also believe that we shouldn`t wait for the Department of Justice and that we should pursue the inherent contempt powers of the Congress in the interim, which is something that the Congress can and should do.

HAYES What does that look like?

NEGUSE: So, inherent contempt powers of the Congress, Chris, have always existed under our Constitution. The powers have been largely dormant for the better part of the last 90 years. And myself, Ted Lieu, Val Demings, a group of us on the House Judiciary Committee, who again experienced the stonewalling of the Trump administration firsthand, a year and a half ago proposed changing our rules to essentially codify and authorize the use of inherent contempt.

And inherent contempt would function very similar to the way in which criminal contempt of Congress functions if that referral is implemented. So, a long-winded way of saying that essentially, it would include fines, monetary penalties, and I should mention that in the past, inherent contempt has been used by the Congress in both the Senate and the House with penalties of imprisonment as well. The last time was during the Teapot Dome scandal of the 1930s.

So, Congress is not powerless. It would not require the passage of the resolution in the Senate, and it would only require a majority vote in the House of Representatives. So, we think our resolution is a prudent step forward. And we`ll certainly be encouraging our colleagues to take it up.

HAYES: Wait, that`s key. You don`t -- you wouldn`t need the Senate? Because when I saw this earlier today, I thought like, obviously, there`s not going to be 10 Republican votes for this in the Senate. Your theory of the case here is that this would be a simple majority vote of a resolution adopting rules codified in the branch of the house itself which derives the power from the U.S. Constitution.

NEGUSE: That`s precisely right. The implied powers under the constitution that give the House and the Senate the ability to use its inherent contempt power to enforce duly authorized Congressional subpoena. So, really, the resolution is simply a codifying a set of procedures, right, that are required, and that ultimately would survive Constitutional scrutiny as the Supreme Court has, you know, opined on this in the past.

Look, the evisceration of Congressional oversight really is nearing crisis levels. And it has for quite some time. And so, you know, implementing this resolution would put Congress back on the path I think of repairing the damage that has been done over the last several years under the Trump administration. I think it`s a prudent step forward. And I`m hopeful that my colleagues will agree.

HAYES: Well, if it comes to that, and you have to send the Capitol Police out to find Steve Bannon, I would recommend you first search the nearest Chinese billionaires yacht you can get your hands on. Congressman Joe Neguse, thank you very much.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source