Skip to main content

Charles Schumer
  U.S. Senate Sen. Leader Schumer on AG Barrs Testimony Mueller Report  CSPAN  May 2, 2019 4:43pm-4:54pm EDT

4:43 pm
ripens on monday. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: if there is no further business, i ask that the senate stand adjourned mr. schumer: mr. president, attorney general barr's performance in yesterday's performance in yesterday's
4:44 pm
mr. president, attorney general barr performance in yesterday's judiciary committee hearing, raising all types of questions about his willingness to be a faithful steward of the law. several outlandish claims, once stood out, one should send shivers down the spine of anyone who believes in this democracy, one in the founding fathers. they heard him say what he said. attorney general barr said yesterday that the president could not have obstructed justice because he believed he was falsely accused but even went further made, here's what he said, attorney general barr said in the investigation is quote based on false allegations the president does not have to sit there constitutionally and allow it to run its course. the president could terminate thatat proceeding and not have t
4:45 pm
be corrupt intense because he was falsely accused. what a he can commit terminate any investigation or proceeding against him, any normal. that determination on his and nobody else's? i am sending a letter to the attorney general this morning and asking him a whole bunch of questions. based on that confounding statement. first, we know he had a theory of unitarian executive, he sssued that letter before he was chosen as attorney general. many believe that's why he was chosen. this is the first time he stated them as an attorney general.ld
4:46 pm
does he stand by that? or was it a mistake? does he stand by the statement that he said yesterday, based on false allegations the president does not have to sit there constitutionally and allowed to run its course? the president could terminate that proceeding and not have it be corrupt intense because he was falsely accused. terminate a proceeding. who's the determination? who is the determiner? of what is a false allegation. the president himself? solely? i will ask general barr that question. what about other proceedings and investigations? let's say one of the presidents family is being invest a gated. if he determines based on false allegations, does he have the
4:47 pm
unilateral powerer? what if it's one of the presidents business associates? and the president believes they are false allegations? does he have the ability to germany? what if it's one of his political allies? had the ability to terminate. does it mean richard nixon, who believed he was falsely accused, could simply the missed the entire investigation? is that what hebe believes? what president doesn't believed they are being falsely accused? is this were to become the standard, no president could be guilty of obstruction federal investigation and every president would have the right to terminate any investigation certain about that president and maybe about many others with
4:48 pm
some relationship to the president. attorney general bars comments are as close as it gets for saying the president should be about the law. i will be writing him a letter and send it to him this morning asking him these questions and asking you if he stands by this statement. if he does, he should not be attorney general. i will wave his answers. i hope he doesn't stonewall. in addition to these statements that the president could terminate any investigation or
4:49 pm
procedure and he believed based on false facts. the discrepancy between the opinions of the attorney general and conclusions of the mueller report. my colleague senator harris masterfully also covered the attorney general did not examine any of the underlying evidence in the mueller report before making that decision. to his knowledge, neither did the general. the arrogance of these men is amazing. of the most serious issues we've everry passed, more than half. they even bother to look at the underlying evidence before the issue a statement. that indicates the president is exonerated, at least in the president's own mind. that's nothing of the fact that there are somebody on answered questions about the reasoning of
4:50 pm
special counsel mueller's decisions. the result is, we have a gap of understanding the details in the mueller probe. a gap that leaves the crowd hanging over this country, the president, this justice department. a gap that could easily be erased by having the special counsel come to the senate and testify. so i was shocked, appalled and thought it wasn't true. i read on twitter that my friend, chairman lindsey graham, chairman of judiciary that it would not ask mueller to testify. he would send mueller a letter, asking him to respond to be d disagreed with his test money but not invited to testify.
4:51 pm
it's over. to the committee and the floor when i could have printed him even though he was my friend. when i fronted him on the floor here in the senate, he modified his request after he talked and said if mueller said he was misquoted, he could come, that's not the way to do this. mueller should come, no ifs, ands or buts. frankly, lindsey graham is being totally delicate in these abilities. i would ask lindsey graham to reconsider. think about the country, his long history, trying to be fair
4:52 pm
and often. often bipartisan. someone i worked with and showed great courage. and immigration, he must reconsider. he cannot have the judiciary committee simply be a political arm on the president. which is where it is evil thing. under his chairmanship. it requires mueller come. the constitution, if you need it would indicate that it's perfectly with an hour ability and obligation to bring mueller here. please reconsider. invite mueller. his testimony is desperately needed. to clarify what he meant and
4:53 pm
said after mr. bars actions. >> the senate gallery out, today they felt 53 to 45 trumps veto of a yemen war powers resolution which called for an end to u.s. military involvement in yemen. the measure needed 67 votes. the seven republicans who voted in favor of the veto override or senators collins, daines, lee, michalski and your aunt. >> brings us to the boat, will have today. whether or not to override trumps veto of the bipartisan legislation to end u.s. support for arabia's brutal actions in the catastrophic war in yemen.