MSNBC "Hardball with Chris Matthews" - Transcript: Boehner Lawsuit

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Congressman Mo Brooks is a Republican from Alabama and Congressman Jim Clyburn is a Democrat from South Carolina and the assistant Democratic leader.

But back to the big breaking news tonight. Moments ago, the United States
House of Representatives continued their assault on President Obama, taking an historic vote to sue the president of the United States. The result was not surprising. The House voted heavily along party lines, with 225 Republicans voting yes to sue, and 196 Democrats and five Republicans voting no on a resolution to authorize a lawsuit again the president.

Let me go to Congressman Brooks. Why would you vote to sue the president?

REP. MO BROOKS (R), ALABAMA: Well, first, let`s be clear. Speaker John Boehner, President Barack Obama -- that`s a little picture. The big picture, as, if you look at history with Richard Nixon, Johnson in Vietnam, and any number of actions that have ensued since then and that will ensue in the future, is whether there is anything that can be done by the House of Representatives or by the Senate to make sure that a president obeys the law.

And the proper way to do that is to seek a writ of mandamus to compel the president to do something via court order or a declaratory judgment, so that all of us can understand what the law actually means.

And this will be binding going forward, so if you happen it have a Democrat House or Democrat Senate or a Republican president, it cuts both ways. But I think it`s important to our constitutional process to be able to establish what the House and the Senate cannot do vis-a-vis the separation of powers with (ph) the president of the United States. So the bigger picture going forward is this is very much bipartisan.

MATTHEWS: OK, let me ask you about your picture on this. Had Mitt Romney won in 2012, when he was in charge of bringing into action the Affordable Care Act and he had decided for reasons of efficiency to delay the implementation of the employer mandate, would you have sued him?

BROOKS: If there was the opportunity to do so, to question whether a law was being properly enforced, yes. But please understand that I`m one of those that is somewhat of an independent Republican. I do what I think the Constitution requires of us. I obey my oath of office as best I can. And if you`ve got a president that is crossing the line in a serious way and in a clear-cut way, hopefully, so that you don`t have very much of a litigation issue, then yes.

MATTHEWS: Well, you`ve just -- you`ve just defined the issue, sir. You said because this president delayed the implementation of the employer mandate in the Affordable Care Act, he should be sued. Wouldn`t--

BROOKS: Well--

MATTHEWS: Are you saying that`s a precedent? Now, you just said a minute ago you wanted to set a precedent here.

BROOKS: That`s not what the bill says.

MATTHEWS: Would you apply that precedent--

BROOKS: Wait a minute. The legislation that passed the House doesn`t say that.

MATTHEWS: It says the speaker of the House is entitled now to go forward and gain counsel to pursue civil litigation against the president of the United States on this issue.

BROOKS: On the Affordable Care Act.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

BROOKS: There are any number of aspects of the Affordable Care Act, if the president is acting contrary to law, then seeking a declaratory judgment action from a federal court judge or a writ of mandamus from a federal court judge -- I mean, Chris, there are hundreds of thousands of lawsuits that are filed annually across the United States of America--

MATTHEWS: I know. I just want to know--

BROOKS: -- as a way for people to resolve--

MATTHEWS: -- if you`re being fair here.

BROOKS: -- disputes -- it`s a way for people--

MATTHEWS: You`re saying that this is a precedent--

BROOKS: -- to resolve disputes in a peaceful fashion.

MATTHEWS: OK--

BROOKS: And this is a way for a very important issue to be resolved in a peaceful fashion.

MATTHEWS: OK. Well, we`ll see. Let me go over to Jim Clyburn.

Congressman Clyburn, thank you for joining us. And give me your sense of what you think the motive is because I find this very narrow here. When you`re going after the president`s ways of implementing a law, whether it`s his law or it`s his predecessor`s law, it`s a question of executive management. How do you best do it?

And the irony here is this is pro-business. Republicans never liked the employer mandate, and here`s the president`s charged, he`s being sued in civil court, basically, for having done what the Republicans would love to have done, which is to put off the employer mandate. I just think it`s being done in a partisan fashion. Your view.

REP. JIM CLYBURN (D), SOUTH CAROLINA: Well, thank you so much for having me, Chris. You are exactly right. You may recall that the Republicans voted more than 50 times at trying to delay or eliminate certain parts of the Affordable Care Act. And one of the things they wanted to do was to delay the employer mandate.

And as soon as the president moves to delay it, now they`re suing him for doing exactly what they suggested that he should do in order to give the businesses of this country an opportunity to prepare for the implementation of the act.

Look, this is all about using the discovery process to get a peg upon which they can hang an impeachment resolution. That`s what this is about. We all know that. Members are saying it. You know, a couple of the five members who voted against it say it. They`re all in favor of going straight to an impeachment resolution. So that`s what`s going on here.The American people are fed up with this. They want to see--

MATTHEWS: Yes, let me get him--

CLYBURN: -- a fixed immigration system, do something about our crumbling
infrastructure, do something about our children being able to attend schools of their choice. But here we are, with gamesmanship of a size I`ve never seen since I`ve been here in the Congress.

MATTHEWS: Let me go back to Congressman Brooks on this. It seems to me that there were four members of the five who voted against it on your side who basically have expressed the view, This isn`t strong enough. What do you say to them? They want impeachment, apparently. I`m talking about Congressman Brown of Georgia, Congressman Jones of North Carolina, Congressman Massey of Kentucky and Stockman, of course, no surprise there, from Texas.

Do you think they`re extremists or do you think that they`re ahead of schedule? What would do if the president failed to respond to a court order in this case?

BROOKS: Well, first, I agree with you, Chris, and Congressman Clyburn on the paradox associated with the nature of this suit on the employer mandate. I would have much preferred that the litigation be concerning immigration law and whether the president can unilaterally, contrary to federal law, give work permits to illegal aliens, which in turn costs American citizens jobs. That`s where I would have preferred the litigation to be. But unfortunately, that was not what the House leadership decided to do.

So I think there`s some merit to the paradoxical position of the House now suing the president, if that is, in fact, what the speaker does, on the employer mandate issue, when I think that the president is doing the economy good by delaying that because once it`s implemented, it is going to have an adverse effect on jobs and the economy. That`s my view, and I think you agree with that and Congressman Clyburn agrees with that.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: As a commentator, I think that makes much more sense, although I may not agree with it, because there you have the president grabbing legislative power, which is the issue -- what`s he going to issue it under, the office of the president stationery? I mean, who`s -- what are these work permits going to say at the top of the fold, "Issued by the president of the United States"?

Anyway, let`s look at what Congressman John Lewis had to say today on the floor during this vote.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JOHN LEWIS (D), GEORGIA: From his first day in office, the Republicans in the House, in this House, have never supported this president. Every olive branch he extended was broken! But today, Mr. Speaker, we have reached a low, a very low point. This resolution to sue the president just goes a little too far. It is a shame and a disgrace that we`re here debating the suing of the president. The American people deserve better. We can do better. We can do much better!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: Congressman Brooks, a last thought because you just admitted something, that you much would have preferred to vote for a measure that dealt with something far more controversial, like the president, if he ever is going to do something (INAUDIBLE) issue work permits as president of the United States and the executive -- well, certainly not an executive function. It would be a legislative issue.

But then you went ahead and voted for it. Is there not a willingness on the part of your caucus to hit the president whenever they can, whenever they can, as Congressman Lewis just said, hit him hard?

BROOKS: Well, no. On the Veterans Administration bill, by way of example, bipartisan, went through the Senate, went through the House, addressed a very serious issue, and the president, I think, will be on board and will sign that bill. So I don`t think it`s across the board.

But there are significant policy disagreements between this White House and House of Representatives and the United States Senate. And you`ve seen this in perpetuity throughout the history of the United States of America. When you have these policy disagreements, you have these kinds of vigorous debates. Ultimately, the people decide in the election process every two years.

But until then, we have to work our way through our disagreements and do what we can where we agree and try to work our way through our disagreements.

MATTHEWS: Mr. Clyburn, how much, do you think, of this is at the person of the president and not at the issue of the ACA and how it`s been implemented?

CLYBURN: I think most of it is directed at the president. The fact of the matter is, I agree with my colleague. That is the way we resolve issues, at the ballot box. What is going on here is the failure to defeat this president at the ballot box is now being substituted with this lawsuit.

This is just an attempt, as John Lewis said, to once again to besmirch, to destroy the effectiveness of this president because they did not get their way in the policy discussions. We do that every two years. We don`t go to the courts and ask the courts to carry on our political battles for us.

I remember very well, right after 2000, when there were a lot of people in our caucus were saying, Let`s impeach President Bush. Nancy Pelosi said very forcefully, Impeachment is off the table. Now, let`s go forward.I would love to see Speaker Boehner speak up and let everybody know that impeachment is off the table so that we can have the kinds of policy discussions that my colleague thinks that we ought to be having--

(CROSSTALK)

CLYBURN: That is not what`s going on here, and I think the American people are fed up with it.

BROOKS: While we`re busy in Washington, maybe Congressman Clyburn didn`t see it, but speaker has said that impeachment is off the table. And I can assure you there is zero chance. It`s an effort in futility.

MATTHEWS: OK--

BROOKS: If you couldn`t get an impeachment of Bill Clinton when he committed perjury, there`s no way in the world you`re going to get 67 Democrat -- excuse me, 67 senators--

MATTHEWS: OK--

BROOKS: -- in a Democrat Senate to impeach Barack Obama, no matter what the charges are. So impeachment--

CLYBURN: Well--

BROOKS: There`s zero chance of that being brought--

MATTHEWS: OK--

BROOKS: -- forward in the House of Representatives.

MATTHEWS: OK. Just to correct--

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: -- Bill Clinton was impeached, he just wasn`t convicted--

(CROSSTALK)

CLYBURN: -- only requires a majority of votes of the House--

BROOKS: And there won`t be--

CLYBURN: -- and that`s what`s going on here.

(CROSSTALK)

BROOKS: -- and there is no impeachment--

MATTHEWS: -- respect you both for coming on tonight.

BROOKS: -- effort in the House.

MATTHEWS: I respect you both for coming on tonight. Congressman Jim Clyburn, of course, and Congressman Mo Brooks, thank you for coming on.

CLYBURN: Thank you.

BROOKS: Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source