tv Washington Journal James Schultz CSPAN June 18, 2019 12:29am-1:11am EDT
are expected to continue work on a 2020 spending bill for defense, hhs, and other federal agencies. members of congress and the acting head of the food and drug administration will talk about the latest developments in cancer treatment and prevention, followed by the senate at 10:00 eastern with more debate and votes on executive and judicial nominations. in the evening, the presidents kickoff reelection. then the first hearing on reducing health care costs, then russian activities in ukraine. 1979, a small network rolled out with the big idea. let viewers make up their own minds. c-span opened the doors for washington policy to all to see, bringing you unfiltered content from congress and beyond. a lot has changed in those years, but that big idea is more
relevant than ever. on television and online, c-span is your unfiltered view of government, so you can make up your own mind. brought to u.s. a public service by your cable or satellite provider. mueller report. we are joined from philadelphia in rmer associate counsel the trump white house james schultz. tell us about your service there. don mcgann, th right. guest: i did. served from the beginning of the administration until the end f the first year as senior associate counsel and special handled ethics and compliance and trade and infrastructure and we all in as it related to the confirmation process. it was a great experience and i
glad to be nd i'm back in philadelphia with my family. ost: as you watch from the sidelines you see your former perhaps more than anybody in the mueller report that camp out and the calls -- out and calls for don mcgann to testify what are your on that? guest: i think the democratic the first congress thing they want to hold the in contempt, al subpoena don mcgann and subpoena i think there nd is overreach going on. white house is saying no, no, no but there's good reason. look at the democrats and a broad scope from when don mcgann was counsel to the campaign as a private
sector lawyer straight through white house counsel. there are privilege issues all place.e if it was a more narrowly might see quest you more accommodation. ut if it is so broad i think that it is the same. and tell me your thoughts the explanation for the white ouse rationale for preventing mr. mcgann's testimony although er will be f er testifying we understand. guest: i think that testimony if limited serves me is to her time on the campaign not a white house aide in the official capacity. there are is executive privilege issues relating to the president's deliberations and in the white house as it relates
to policy decisions and any decisions. encourage the president to rely on his staff and make -- and not ear think that congress can come in nd stomp on the executive branch's ability to have tphrblt in what they are trying to accomplish. has been a long established and ard by the courts constitutionally founded. i think that the democrats in are speaking out of both sides of their mouths. during priorortant democratic administrations on fast and sues whether furious or the clinton administration. ow executive privilege it is not so important. the important thing to note is the trump ust about administration or donald trump. it is the institution of the obligation of lawyers to protect it because
to have ward you want the president to have the bility to communicate unfetterred with his or her staff. you were on the legal team the republican convention in cleveland. muelleralking about the investigation, more specifically responsibility of congress versus the interest of the white house and executive issue.ge we would like to hear from you. for for 202-748-8001, democrats is 202-748-8000 and or independents it is 202-748-80 202-748-8002. a private is now citizen. is he obliged to follow the for him to not testify because of executive
privilege? until a court of competent jurisdiction or the may testify s he about things he communicated with the president about he is testify.o he's still a practicing lawyer obligations hical in connection with being a practicing lawyer and part of are maintaining attorney-client and executive privilege in the white house and the campaign. so unless a considerate orders him to do -- unless a court to do so and that could go to the supreme court or thatresident releases him, is the president's and executive nch branch's information. host: we heard the description counsel as house serving the office of the president. e is not the president's similar. during your time as associate ounsel to the president was that clearly defined?
having it different from an individual client as an attorney, correct? my experience i was john counsel to the governor of is similar to what don mcagain served it the mcgann served and it was something very clear. team the and our collective "we" served the white office. not the president in his capacity as a personal lawyer. he had personal lawyers to handle the matters coming in his capacity and continues to have private lawyers. what the s most of white house counsel's office was deregulation, judges and legal policy issues s it related to the executive agencies and executive branch of government. host: there were several where the president was quoted as saying he western
liked something quote more cohn. do you think he got the difference between his personal white house counsel? did you ever feel like were serving more of the president the office? guest: i never felt like i was serving anything but the office presidency. and the president in his capacity as president. that is pushing forward his agenda and working judges rade issues and and pushing the agenda. he wants fighters in that says ty and the fact he where is my iry cohn he was askg fighters to push his agenda. s it relates to private sector he had private sector rudy working on of them the issues relating to the
mueller investigation on behalf personally. i think that -- i know there was never a line crossed on the part of the white house counsel relating to that because there was a clear delineation responsibilities and our responsibilities. host: now that you are back to being a private attorney and out of the office of white house counsel you look at what is termsing in washington in of the mueller report. what do you think all of this testimony terms of efore congressional committees and what democratic committees are looking for from witnesses? first i think it is important to note that the ttorney general's office and the attorney barr and his staff are working closely with the accommodate their requests and turn over documents are not est that
subject -- it is funny because asking for s were grand jury information. hat is a basic principle, you know the justice department is ever going to turn over 6-e grand jury information borrows the grand jerry is so important the grand jury is so important to conduct criminal skwrpbundermine we tell people won't want to come ta talk to the prosecutors. everything from violent crime and fraud cases. important to preserve that. i think there was a lot of grand and what you are seeing ow is reasonable accommodation s where the appropriate clearances are in place in the especially as relates to intelligent committee. so i think you will see some of because the senate and
to e have an entitlement certain documents but not the 6-e or grand jury information. i have a caller but finish your thought. it relates to witness testimony it is important to that.about i believe there was significant overreach on the part of the to crats in congress immediately ask for don mcdan or donaldson the deputy counsel to the president chief of staff to mcgann. is important to note i think democrats characterized her as taker and ote errands. trained lawyer and to subpoena her testimony the fact she is this highly accomplished lawyer ho was serving as deputy counsel to the president is
irresponsible. james schultz in philadelphia former white house associate counsel and now the regulatory claihair law firm in philadelphia. we welcome your thoughts. to phyllis in kansas city on the democratic line. good morning. what i have a question about, schultz, don't you think he collected evidence from trump's perform lawyer and to -- personal lawyer and to me whatever evidence he had unlawful and, why shouldn't the be able to see something that was gotten
place?lly in the first guest: an investigation was conducted by mr. mueller and he grand jury to conduct that investigation. by the anctioned attorney general of the united states and while -- the former general abstain interested that, rob rosenstein attorney general oversaw that investigation. the investigation itself as it russian interference with our election was something by the sanctioned justice department generally. and they had subpoena power they can request information from private individuals, government agencies, so on and forth. hat material in most times is secret information an what is not secret grand jury that ation is information can be turned over to congress
because they have an interest in the intelligence issues and oreign interference issues and rightful rightfully should be turned over appropriate security clearances. so it is appropriate for request some of this information, just not all of t. from doris on the democrats line from arizona. i would like for kwhychultz to explain to me he information received shouldn't be shared with .merican people totally if the president has nothing, is not guilty of anything, why cleared he want to be they can tely so that
get on with the business of country.he host: go ahead with your comment. guest: that is a very good question. just because government into ces are put investigation doesn't mean it becomes public. i was talking about the of grand jury secrecy. if there is an investigation drug and gun crime in a neighborhood and the justice department wants to testify witnesses to before a grand jury so they fear for their lives it is important to protect that afraidny so they are not to come forward. grand ent we turn over injure information -- grand jury then it becomes into jeopardy and we can't be shortsighted. this were the normal investigation where politics and world of washington didn't
factor into it, i don't think ever seent would have the light of day. but it is important for the american people to have was going on in the mueller investigation and -- host: finish your comments, james schultz? we lose your connection? can you hear us? shuttles, are you hearing us? take a phone o call and see if we can reestablish that with philadelphia.n sofia in bronx, go ahead with your comments. schultz, are you back with us? guest: i'm back with you. host: we lost you for a second an audio breakaway. sofia in the bronx, republican line. caller: good morning. assignment.r this
'm very satisfied with .r. robert mueller [inaudible] the $46 gave us trump tower million for taxpayers. to hear so n't have e spent $30 million, $40 million. that is one. the second one, mr. mueller came in on the 29th of may, on my birthday, confronted william ba truth.the nd c-span 3 gave us from 12:00 in the morning no midnight the whole report. of you who do not read the
don't report, please follow all the tphaonews media. cnn, i watch fox. much.hank you so keep up the job and also the reports, be strong. host: how much of the report re you able to read, angels -- skwraels schultz? uest: i read it cover to recover. i don't think that the general public is reading the report cover for the most part. i think that the news coverage opportunities for pundits to discuss it helps it frame the on both sides of the aisle. so a robust discussion about the the news channels is a good thing and doing things like this today is beneficial. host: let's hear from leo we
westminster westminster, california, democratic lean. talk about --d to i wanted to talk about the washington journal it is a good for rank and file people to communicate with their officials and president. i just wish that when you put that you numbers up ould always put democrats, republicans, independents and too, i wish that you would like e age of the caller 77 years old.i'm ost: some good suggestions there, leo. for jamese a question
schultz? caller: no, i wanted to get that on the call because i appreciate that. host: we appreciate your input. to mike in belton, on the independent line. caller: one thing i want to ask about he obviously believes in security clearances brought them up several times for the senate. would like to ask him why donald trump's son-in-law didn't and that security pass donald trump ordered him to have first thing. the second thing i want to say [inaudible] the only criminals will not answer a subpoena. or will barr -- you
what i'm talking about. only criminals refuse to answer donald trump is definitely a criminal. securitypoenas and the clearances is the question. i will talk about security clearances generally speaking. they are something there is a goes through the white house through the office of security where an conducted and s that determination makes its way decision makers in the white house. the f.b.i. and folks doing the nvestigation are essentially acting as private investigators on behalf of the executive they are going out and doing these background check investigations. facts.ather they did make judgments. the white house office of as rity makes the judgment to whether someone deserves a security clearance. a lot of them are year people ultimately the judgment as
to whether to grant or not grant based on clearance tpef ts the february -- develops lies with the president and it is his rerogative to grant security clearances. what was the other issue? i think helogize but was talking about the mueller eport -- guest: subpoenas. let's talk about subpoenas a answering them. we are talking about congressional subpoenas. long been a push and pull between the executive branch and congress whether democrat in the white house and republicans in the congress or vice versa. about executive support versus the power of the always and congress wants more and requesting information and the white house on the ly pushes back
subpoenas or requests for information. a lot of there is times a compromise and if there re no compromises in is a way to handle that. that is the court system. the courts will then allow the fight out the subpoenas in court. it happened in the harriett fast and furious investigation as it related to eric holder's information. talked about you served as the legal counsel to pennsylvania for a stretch and came to the white ouse as deputy counsel, associate counsel under don mcgann. steep learning curve in taking on the duties of that office? always a re is learning curve when you come into an office like the of the e office president or white house. misadvising the viewers if i said otherwise. ut the job that i did in pennsylvania certainly prepared me for the position.
throughout00 lawyers the commonwealth government and andled issues similar it the federal level, domestic issues. the difference is the and just nal issues the environment in washington is much and fast pace d -- defend than the state but i was prepared to go and enjoyed both jobs. ost: you supported the president. you worked on the legal team of levelnvention and did the of partisanship when you came here surprise you? not at all. washington is washington, right? during isanship we saw the election cycle and it got moean really quick and i think you are seeing more and democrats moving farther and farther left and i parts start enever
oving right or left and that seems to be what is happening in washington, it is tough to get agreement. of that comes back to who is being elected and i pretty u saw some moderate democrats go down in and that makes it more difficult to have compromise etween the two parties in washington. you saw the same with the tea party movement in the republican republican party started moving farther to the incumbent that were moderates were being taken out conservative folks. in : let's go to david florida. republican line. yes.r: host: you are on the air. go ahead, david. david, you are on the air. good morning.
is it that we why had the mueller report and on the y is excited democratic side and why is it hat he fell short on fully going after people with this supposedly russia investigation? and i don't hate people, i hate my issue is , but with the clinton and democratic rather obvious they are wrapped up in this a ot more than trump with ever think to be in. so how is it you pay a man like take about he y saved money because he took the different people's money and it cost anything. it seems like if he went after on the f the people other side he would be making more money instead of the away atic party getting with all they have gotten away overr is it just something time [inaudible].
guest: i think that the question boils down to scope and what was the investigation. it started as a counterintelligence relative to the interference of the -- the interference of russians in our elections in 016 and there were a number of things that came out of the investigation. russians were indicted. private citizens in the united as as suffered indictments result of this investigation. i think that is what you are asking. extent there are other issues relative to the other side how the investigation for instance, the attorney general has been very into those ooking areas. the inspector john is looking -- them as s looking into it is the formation of what aused the investigation to get to the point where they felt it
was necessary to do so. were the fisa warrants appropriately, was the appropriate information given to the uphill on those and -- to and what werehose some of the agencies doing as it elated to this initial stages of the investigation. the undertone was a person or not partisan? i think it remains to be seen. for the sake of our country, we hope that it was not. we will hear more from the inspector general and the attorney general very soon on those issues. is on ournext call democrat's line, new york. you give examples of any other administration official who dismissed lawful subpoenas the way this trump
administration has done? and with all the proof of from thisterference president and him sitting there and saying he would take that information again. thet: on the subpoenas, important thing to note about what you said is the lawful subpoena. whether these subpoenas are lawful or not, within the appropriate scope, asking for information they are permitted to ask for, remains to be seen when it relates to tax returns of the president and the information some of his staff may have. there are executive privileges, which protects a lot of that information. as i relates to the tax returnst, it is and clear. they have asked -- it is unclear. they have asked for tax returns for a number of years before the president was elected. i do not believe the law was to have a president or
administration official produced that information as it related to the time before the presidency. that goes back to a scandal in the 1920's where they wanted information related to potential payoffs. the law in question of all of this was passed after that scandal. that was congress' response and a way for congress to get a hold of information relative to payoffs while someone was in office. you werees schultz, working in the white house when james comey was fire in -- fired in may of 2017. looking back on it, did you have concerns on the decision? guest: i cannot discussed anything i worked on. ethically, i am prohibited from discussing any of my thoughts, anything i worked on while i was in the white house. but what i will talk about generally is the dismissal of james comey.
it was well within the province of the president of the united states to dismiss the fbi director. to appoint his cabinet constitutionally and appoint the fbi director and for the senate to confirm that individual after he nominates them. so this idea that he could not fire the fbi director is, quite frankly, nonsense, in my view. he had every right to fire james comey and had the right to do so from day one. in collins,next mississippi, independent line. caller: good morning. i remember when nunez was working on the first investigation about the situation, and he was taking information back to the president and someone contacted him to get documents and take it to the president and some of his
people. were you involved in that? do you know anything about it? sooner or later, there will be an election. now, of the thing going on it is not just the president that is the problem, it is the republican party trying to protect themselves and follow the president rather than follow the evidence. 2020,0, if this goes into september of this year, there will be a problem about the people voting, because this should have been evaluated and looked at. when you keep putting roadblocks , it is -- host: let's get a response on representative nunes, who was
chair of the intelligence committee in the house. i think that is what he was talking about. guest: i cannot get into anything that was going on inside the white house when i was at the white house or confirm any information relative to that. but talking about the roadblocking, this is an age-old issue between congress and the white house on a lot of oversight issues. there are always disputes over what information the executive branch has to turn over to congress, and it is nothing new at all. as it relates to 2020, look, this is why we have elections. factlks are happy with the unemployment is at its lowest and more people are working than ever before and gdp growth is outstanding and we are getting better trade deals with countries, they will have to make judgments as to the successes of this administration. i think the president is up for
that challenge and up to the task no matter who he has on the others. host: i want to ask about the issue of impeachment. usatoday.com,n most americans want the president to comply with subpoenas, but impeach him, not so fast. what do you think is the likelihood of the house proceeding ahead on impeachment proceedings against the president? guest: that is anyone's guess. there is incredible pressure on nancy pelosi. you saw her come out the other we can say she would rather have this investigation continue or not impeach and beat the president in 2020 and then see him jailed. i think that that was her reaction to the extreme left and calls to impeachment, trying to placate them a little bit so that she has some air cover as it relates to the echo chamber that goes on in washington. but i do not believe that
congress will move forward with impeachment proceedings. i do not believe they will do that, just by virtue of the fact of the information they are asking for and the overreach they are making. toy seem more interested in stumping the bully pulpit then getting to the bottom of these issues. host: a call on our republican line in levittown, new york. democrat,am a former now republican. the democrats are hell-bent on impeaching the government, impeaching president trump. but then how would democrats deal with pins taking over the presidency -- with pence taking over the presidency? guest: i agree that there seems to be a group of democrats in congress that are anxious to begin impeachment proceedings, that is the pressure that has been put on speaker pelosi, something she will have to deal with.
i do not know how they democrats would react to a president pence. but i think we will have a president trump for the foreseeable future. --t: dottie next in georgia donni. guest: first of all, he did not answer the question asked about any of the president, just talking about anybody who ever worked for him. and if anybody else had got a subpoena and they refused to answer it, they would send the police over to their house and arrest them. said that nobody had the right -- if they were going to court about his tax returns. englishsays in plain they shall turn over the tax returns. they did not say you got to have a reason. it says, he shall turn over the
tax returns. i heard it. everybody heard it. so what they really trying to do is block everything. he is sitting there saying, well, we have to have this -- well, they have the right to have oversight. how you going to have oversight when the president's sitting there telling everybody who ever work for him -- host: we will get a response. guest: you have to understand the difference between -- the general public has to have an understanding. even in a judicial subpoena context, there are mechanisms for lawyers to quash or fight the subpoenas, even when issued by a court. you go before a judge and there argued. congress, same thing. you have an ability to negotiate the testimony, and if the parties cannot come to an agreement on the scope of the testimony, whether they will testify or not, that is when you go to the judicial system.
that is how it gets sorted out. it has happened time and time again throughout multiple situations. i go back to the eric holder situation during the obama administration during fasting for years. it was looking at what information could be produced out of the inquiry. host: quick thoughts on the issue that came up from the office of special counsel on kelly conway and her alleged violation of the hatch act and political tweets or comments, et cetera. president gets -- looks at policy issues every day, and it is a fine line between policy and politics. respondingonway, her andhose policies in kind making a counter argument to his opponents, i believe it is necessary, appropriate, and within her first amendment constitutional rights to do so.
i think there was overreach on the part of the special counsel on this, without question. i encourage folks to read the white house counsel's remarks on that. host: james schultz's government , formerlatory chair associate white house counsel. >> casey berg and u.s. term limits executive director will discuss congressional term limits. be sure to watch c-span's "washington journal" tuesday morning.
join the discussion. >> here is a look at live coverage tuesday. eastern, u.s. trade representative robert lighthizer testifies before the senate finance committee about u.s. trade policy, including the recent agreement between the u.s., mexico, and canada. in for, the house gavels speeches. members are expected to continue work on a 2020 spending bill for defense, labor, hhs, and other federal agencies. members of congress and the acting head of the fda talk about the latest development in cancer treatment and prevention. that's followed by the senate at 10: -- at 10:00 eastern with judicial nominations. official trump's reelection kickoff rally in florida.
♪ >> the house will be in order. announcer: for 40 years, c-span has been providing unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events from washington, d.c. and around the country. so you can make up your own mind. c-span by cable in 1979, is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. ♪ >> reporters from the los angeles times discuss their nipseye of the death of hussle. they discuss attempts to change the negative image of los angeles. the national