MSNBC The Abrams Report - Transcript

MSNBC The Abrams Report - Transcript

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

ABRAMS: Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren is a California Democrat and a member of the House Judiciary and Homeland Security Committee. She‘s leading the effort (INAUDIBLE) Democrats to have a special counsel appointed. Tim Susanin was an associate independent counsel during the Whitewater investigation and a former federal prosecutor. Thanks to both of you for coming on the program. Appreciate it.

All right, Congresswoman Lofgren, I mean what is the reasoning to need a special counsel here? I mean apart from the fact that people are debating whether it should be done or shouldn‘t be done, it sounds like what you want is you want the administration—you want someone to investigate the administration.

REP. ZOE LOFGREN (D), CALIFORNIA: We all want to make sure that if al Qaeda has conspired with someone that our government finds out about it. That‘s the point of total agreement. The point of dispute is whether that eavesdropping occurs within the body of American law or outside of the law.

ABRAMS: Well that‘s actually not what we‘re talking about though.

Because what we‘re talking about is a special counsel...

LOFGREN: Well no, actually it is...

ABRAMS: No. Because look...

(CROSSTALK)

LOFGREN: ... and if you let me finish...

ABRAMS: ... I am on your side when it comes to the issue...

LOFGREN: ... if you let me...

ABRAMS: No—I got to stop you because you‘re starting with a speech and the bottom line is I agree with you on the NSA spying. I think that it is a circumventing of FISA, but I want to know specifically...

LOFGREN: Well you don‘t even know what it is.

ABRAMS: All right. I know. I know. I don‘t understand...

LOFGREN: You don‘t even know what it is and neither do we.

ABRAMS: OK. OK.

LOFGREN: We don‘t know exactly—we don‘t—nobody in Congress except for eight individuals even knows exactly what the NSA is doing...

ABRAMS: We know...

LOFGREN: ... it appears...

ABRAMS: ... that what the administration admits to have done publicly even, just accepting that that‘s what they‘re doing, my legal...

(CROSSTALK)

ABRAMS: ... analysis of that is that that‘s not OK. What I don‘t understand though is why you now need another special counsel here. That‘s what I want to talk about.

LOFGREN: We want to find out exactly what is going on and to make sure that the efforts to keep us safe comply with the law either by tweaking what the NSA is doing, or, if necessary, amending the statute. It appears from what has been said that what is happening does not comply with the statute. We have asked the inspector general of the Department of Justice to look at this, they refused.

We asked the inspector general of the Department of Defense to look at this. They refused. We asked the General Accountability Office to investigate. They declined. We asked the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and the chairman of the Intelligence Subcommittee and Homeland Security to investigate. They didn‘t answer the letters.

I think to have a special counsel review this is a very good solution for us. We can in a way that‘s discreet sort through all the issues and make sure that what is going on complies with the law. We want to be safe from terrorists, but we also want a country that is guided by the rule of law.

ABRAMS: Tim Susanin, that‘s the argument. She just laid it out there for why they want a special counsel. What‘s the response?

TIM SUSANIN, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: I think that‘s a terrible argument. I certainly—what I‘m hearing from Congresswoman Lofgren, Dan, is a frustration that the oversight function is not being carried out and initiating a criminal investigation is not the right way to do that. I understand that the congresswoman‘s letter to the Justice Department has actually been referred to the—a different unit within justice, the Office of Professional Responsibility, the OPR...

ABRAMS: All right...

SUSANIN: ... and also as we all know, there are hearings going on, on the Senate side, but really what we‘re talking about here is criminalizing or at least making a criminal investigation out of the president‘s inquiry into how far can I go to prosecute this war on terror. Running that through the legal mill, getting advice from the...

(CROSSTALK)

LOFGREN: ... a misunderstanding...

SUSANIN: ... office of White House Counsel, from the Justice Department and briefing select members from both sides, from both parties on the Hill, and then somehow trying to shoehorn that into a criminal investigation. It doesn‘t work.

ABRAMS: Congresswoman?

LOFGREN: For a guy who was involved in prosecuting—not prosecuting

investigating President Clinton for sexual indiscretion, he should know that not the only result of an inquiry is a prosecution. I think that the best result would be to come through with the facts, to understand exactly how the law is or is not being complied with, make sure there is compliance. I believe that the president wants to live within the law. I strongly suspect that this endeavor falls short of complying with...

ABRAMS: What about...

(CROSSTALK)

ABRAMS: ... Mr. Susanin‘s comment...

LOFGREN: ... best result...

ABRAMS: What about...

(CROSSTALK)

ABRAMS: All right, best result—all right, but what about Tim Susanin‘s comment that this is criminalizing effectively, that you‘re trying to sort of move this into a different realm because you‘re frustrated that you can‘t get anything done and so you‘re saying, hey, this is our last resort.

(CROSSTALK)

LOFGREN: ... simply wrong.

ABRAMS: Go ahead.

LOFGREN: It‘s simply wrong. As he well knows, special counsels have great authority to look at the facts, they are professionals, and they should be discreet. And so the result could be really a determination of where this—these procedures fall short, if they do. I‘d be delighted if we found out that we were wrong, that our concerns were wrong...

ABRAMS: Yes.

LOFGREN: ... but if we do need to make some changes in the law or the program...

ABRAMS: Tim...

LOFGREN: ... we would be able to do that and I have no reason to believe that the president wouldn‘t embrace that opportunity...

ABRAMS: Tim, let me ask you this.

LOFGREN: ... that he wouldn‘t want to live within...

ABRAMS: It seems that there is a growing sense now in the country and

when I say in the country, look, I‘ve made it very clear that my legal

analysis of this is that they do not have the right to do this without any

reference to the FISA court and simply to say well the FISA court is a

nicety. But apart from that, it now seems Republicans are joining in the chorus.

You‘ve got the Democrats. You‘ve got many Republicans now saying that they are troubled by this program. What can Congress do that you think would be OK for them to say, you know what, we need to check this out? We need to know a little bit more about this. Even if it‘s in secret, we‘ve got to do something.

SUSANIN: Well I think there are a number of ways this will play out. I think as a practical matter, Dan, what we‘re—from what we‘re hearing on Capitol Hill is there will be some kind of accommodation, maybe legislation, but don‘t forget, while that process plays out, as the congresswoman knows from one of the responses she had to her letters to one of the executive agencies, there are several federal district court matters pending and that‘s really what we‘re talking about here. Individuals who feel that their privacy rights have been violated have a recourse. They go to the court...

ABRAMS: Wait. Wait. But Tim, come on. That‘s a copout. Most people don‘t...

SUSANIN: I don‘t think that‘s a copout at all.

ABRAMS: Of course it is. Most people don‘t know that they‘re being -

that surveillance is being engaged on them.

SUSANIN: Well then...

(CROSSTALK)

ABRAMS: You have people who are suing who are saying oh—we had one of the people on. They‘re saying oh you know what, I think I was probably one of the people that they were monitoring. They have no idea.

SUSANIN: Well, as I say, I think before those cases come to a head, Dan, I do think we will see some result through legislation or maybe modification of FISA or some new act on the Hill, but let‘s remember, I mean Congresswoman Lofgren back in the ‘90‘s was the first one to say when the previous administration was being investigated for clearly criminal acts, obstruction of justice, perjury and the like, that impeachment, this type of criminal investigation should be used only when we‘re near a subversion of government and the phrase you used in your lead-in, Dan...

(CROSSTALK)

SUSANIN: ... a difference of a legal argument certainly can‘t be the basis for the criminal investigation...

ABRAMS: Congresswoman gets the final word...

(CROSSTALK)

ABRAMS: ... and then I‘ve got to wrap it up.

LOFGREN: I‘ll just say, this is about the separation of powers. And whether the executive branch has the ability to basically tell the judicial and the legislative branch that they are—have nothing to say about the government.

ABRAMS: Yes.

LOFGREN: That cannot be the way the American government works.

(CROSSTALK)

SUSANIN: I agree, but that doesn‘t warrant a criminal investigation.

(CROSSTALK)

ABRAMS: Representative Lofgren and Tim Susanin, thanks a lot.

Appreciate it.

SUSANIN: Thanks, Dan.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11605044/