Leader Pelosi on Cuomo Prime Time

Madam leader, it's good to have this opportunity. Thank you. We are living a moment of history. However, we are revisited by something that's been too common. Your home state, California, another mass shooting, another dozen lives lost. This time it seems to involve a veteran. Do you believe there's any real chance of bipartisan action from Congress that will help address why we have these shootings? I do. First, let me join you in expressing sorrow over this mass shooting and the loss of the sheriff and every other life that was lost there. I do believe because in this Congress, the one that we're in right this minute, there is bipartisan legislation to have common sense background checks to prevent guns going into the wrong hands. Now, it doesn't cover everything, but it will save many lives. Bipartisan legislation. We've asked the Speaker to bring it to the floor. It has bipartisan support. It would win, but he wouldn't bring it to the floor. Why? You'd have to ask him. I think he doesn't bring it to the floor because he knows it would pass. And therefore, this will be a priority for us in the next Congress. Knowing it would pass if there's bipartisan support, why would anybody not want it to pass? Well, that's we have bipartisan support for the dreamers here. We have bipartisan support for comprehensive immigration reform. We have bipartisan support for many things, for the Equality Act and discrimination against the LGBTQ community. But they just won't bring up the bill. But we will now that we have the majority. You think you can get it passed a Senate in its new configuration? Well, again, President Lincoln said public sentiment is everything. With it, you can do almost anything. Without it, practically nothing. And I do believe that our strength is in the public involvement. It was no surprise that the President of the United States would try to distract from the big win for your party in the House. But when that came in the form of a big move of firing Jeff Sessions and putting in as acting AG Mr. Whitaker, do you see this as a move not just to distract from politics, but to interfere with the Mueller probe? Well, I think the latter is the primary purpose, is to interfere with the Mueller purpose. The timing of the Mueller investigation, the timing of it was, of course, to distract from the big defeat that the President suffered in terms of our taking the House. So there was a political motivation, you say, but do you believe it's constitutional what happened with the Attorney General Jeff Sessions? What's your concern here? Well, first of all, I think that he has been outspoken in saying that he wanted to curtail the Mueller investigation, that it should be curtailed. But Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution says that principles in our government, like the Attorney General, they have to be confirmed by the Senate. The President appoints with advice and consent, but the confirmation of the Senate that that didn't happen. You've seen some of the quotes today that this appointment makes a mockery of the Constitution and the vision of our founders. What's your concern about the move politically and what can you do about it? Well, what we can do about our concern is, of course, that they will interfere and say the President is above the law. What we can do about it is what many of our chairmen and ranking members, now soon to be chairmen in the House, have sent a letter saying we must preserve the documents of the Mueller investigation. We must preserve the preservation of the documents is essential. Leader Schumer and I early on have called upon our leadership counterparts in the Congress, the Speaker and Leader Mitch McConnell, to include in one of our appropriations bill legislation that would say that a counsel, Mueller could not be, just generally, doesn't name him, counsels cannot be fired without due cause. If they are, they have the opportunity to go to a panel of judges to review the cause of it. If that happens and they are dismissed, they cannot be replaced unless by someone who has been confirmed by the Senate. Is there any sign that you have that McConnell would ever go for something like that? I hadn't. I would hope so. But again, public sentiment is everything. This is really important for us to elect. Who knows what Mueller will come up with? We don't. None of us have any knowledge. But you do know that public sentiment is not that great when it comes to the Mueller probe. Many people see it as politically motivated. No, well, I do think, I do think everybody cares about our Constitution. And when they see this, this is a perilously constitutional moment. I don't say it's a constitutional crisis quite yet, but it's a perilous time. And you will see tonight people in the streets because of this firing. But should the president go to Rosenstein or Mueller or something like that, it'll be even worse. This is a very important moment. I hope the president is not frivolous about it. This person does not, should not be there because of the statements he's made already. The fact that it is constitutionally on weak ground is another reason he should, there are plenty of qualified people he could name who could be confirmed. Constitutional issue is one thing, but in terms of him having an opinion, you don't have to recuse yourself because you have opinions on something. It's that you would have an involvement in the matter that you have to oversee. That's why Sessions saw his way clear to recusing himself. Mr. Whitaker having opinions about the probe, that's not disqualifying. Well, he should subject himself to the same scrutiny that Attorney General Sessions did, which is the ethics office in the Justice Department, and they can tell him because they know more than I can even say here about why he may, should recuse himself. Big victory for the Democrats. The House, arguably big victory for the president as well with what he did in the Senate. Everywhere he went in that Senate, he wound up having some type of success. Do you believe that there was also validation, as there was clearly for the Democrats and millions more people came out and voted against this president and what he represents them for, but he wound up taking seats in the Senate that some people didn't think he would get. Do you think there was a show of strength by the president as well in that regard? I don't think there's any symmetry here. I think that the taking back the House, you have to remember that we, when people ask is it a wave, a tsunami, 23 votes was a wave when you talk about the gerrymandered climate territory that we had to contend in. Very gerrymandered. And from the start, people said, well, that's interesting, but you can't win because of gerrymandering. And we were to leapfrog over all of those bad lines and win. And then not only win, but win much more. It remains to be seen how many more we will win as these votes are finalized. That was very big. Now, don't forget the governors. My responsibility is to win the House for the Democrats. I'm very proud of the work that we all did. Ben Ray Lujan, our chairman, magnificent. And that was our responsibility and very important to get that gavel for the balance of power, equal authority in our constitution. If the president wants to take heart and think that there was something similar between our victory and his, let him think that. But the fact is that the demographics of who voted, the number of people who voted, it's a brilliant future for the Democrats. And that was spelled out yesterday. And the Senate. Now, the advantage they had with our tough races up this time, they have that disadvantage next time in a presidential year. Between now and 2020, we all know and everybody's hoping that Justice Ginsburg is OK. So certainly nobody's tougher than she is. That's right. There are these notorious RPG for a reason. But it is a nod to her advanced age and a little bit of physical frailty, if nothing else. He has in the Senate an easy path to confirmation from any judge he. To put up, how concerned are you about the president's ability to get any judge that he wants if Justice Ginsburg should decide to step away? Well, I don't think Justice Ginsburg will step away. Let's not even predicate anything on that. Many people have thought that in the past. And Justice Ginsburg is serving honorably in the Supreme Court. I do think that if the president hasn't any appointment for whatever reason, not Justice Ginsburg, that he should support someone who supports the Constitution of the United States. He's won the election. You expect that he will have people share his views. Overturn Roe v. Wade, guns, immigration, marriage equality, name any issue. It's not a good place for for people who are concerned about. He's going off the list that the Federalist Society gave. No, I understand. Gorsuch, Kavanaugh. But but in the Kavanaugh situation, which I don't go too far down that path because that's done. He he proclaimed that the president is above the law. Let's talk about what you can get done. This call from the president to you. My reporting suggests that he called you and said, Nancy, I want to make deals. I'll make any kind of deals. I'm here to make deals. We should make deals. Is that your recollection of how the call went? Well, I don't know if he said deals. It was very noisy in the room. There was a jubilant, jubilant crowd in that room celebrating or taking back the house for the American people. If you could hear over the throng of enthusiasm from your victory, what did you hear? I heard the word infrastructure that came through clearly. But he said, you know, let's talk how we I'm sure we can come to agreement on some things. And we have an obligation to try to find common ground. Would you come to agreements with this president? Would you work with him to pass legislation? Or do you believe, as many in your party do, that you need to be a check on him? You need to investigate him in the main and keep doing the things that he wants? Well, part of what you said, we are we it is our constitutional responsibility to be a check on the executive branch. And we have the responsibility to have oversight on the agencies of the executive branch. And we fully intend to implement that. The and that shouldn't be a cause for him of any concern because that's the regular order. But it certainly would. And if there's any investigating done of him, I mean, you heard what he said. He said he wanted to be better and change tone. He said, if they investigate me, I'll investigate them. And we both know he will not come to the table with any deals if he feels that he's being investigated. I must hope that their level of maturity here was set in because the American people expect results and they don't expect him to say if we have oversight, which is the legitimate. I'm an appropriator. That's one of the places I was forged in the Congress, as well as on the Intelligence Committee. And we had oversight over what the federal government did in terms of appropriations, in terms of the funding, what we were getting for the taxpayers dollar. Was it worth it? And should we be doing something differently? So that's our responsibility as expect us to relinquish our responsibility. I think what he he's afraid of is any personal investigation of him. And I think Democrats will be just wait to see what Mueller comes up with and go from there. But he has no right to threaten and say, I, I'm not going to cooperate with him. Do you think you could trust him to tell you something, own it, stand behind it and follow it when you just finished a campaign where he was clearly out to get you? Well, I'm really trying to tie you to problems with the Democratic side. Can you work with that? Well, let me say that I will be the speaker of the people's house and the people will hear the commitments that he makes and they'll see whether he will can be trusted in that regard. I hope so, because as we go forward, we want, as I said, an open Congress, a bipartisan Congress, a unifying Congress. We're not here to divide, we're to unify. But if he makes a commitment and and that's in the public domain, and I think that's how we negotiate what happened with immigration, the big meeting, all the smiley faces, love, love, love, love. And then he comes away not long after and saying the Democrats won't do it. They tricked me. You can't trust them. Yeah, well, at least the question who's in charge there. If he's making a commitment and then he reverses it, is he really calling the shot? I think that on the immigration issue, that's that's so political with him. Now, you said there in in the context of your answer, I'll be the speaker. I'll be the people's speaker. Yeah, yeah. What is your level of confidence that you'll be the speaker of the house? Total. 100 percent. 100 percent. Yeah. I sent out my letter last night because I didn't ask anybody for support because I was too busy winning an election and I didn't think it was appropriate to ask members or candidates then. And how it works is the caucus nominates someone and then they go to the floor and you think they'll be another nominee other than you? Doesn't matter. I've had a nominee every time except maybe the very first time. Yeah, I don't think there was one the first time, but every other time I've had an opponent. You don't think that you'll have to deal with unusual opposition? If I do, I mean, that's politics. I mean, this is not a day at the beach. This is politics. Here I am. We've delivered the victory because we had the best possible candidates. And we had the best possible candidates who inspired the grassroots. We own the ground. And all of the organizations, whether it's about protect our care, protect our environment, all of those organizations worked to elect these people and they want to see results. And we have to get moving with that. So without getting into the making of sausage around here, I feel very confident about where I am and I feel very encouraged by an overwhelming support in my caucus that will go to the floor. Now, as we both know, and the audience should know, I've known you most of my life. And I wonder with all that you've done and all that you've achieved, is there any part of you that says, yeah, I'm about to dive into what may well be the most contentious and difficult period of your public life. If you are speaker of the house right now, being set up as we saw in the paper this morning in direct opposition to the most powerful man in the world and somebody who fights in a way that we haven't seen recently in politics. Do you have any reservations about whether or not you want this in your life at this point? No, none whatsoever. In fact, it's an urgency that I can't resist. I mean, if Hillary Clinton had won, our Affordable Care Act would be protected and I could go home. You know, no one in California ever gets Potomac fever. We always want to go home. But that didn't happen, sadly, for our country. So this is something that I feel that I have all of my experiences geared to, all of my legislative... Do you think you can handle Trump on a regular basis, the way he is, as personal as it can be, as constantly as the attacks can be? You know, I've been the workhorse and people say, well, you're not a show horse. Well, I have to be a workhorse and a show horse now because I'll be center stage. But all of these candidates, all of our incumbents, they'll be taking their message home. The public will see. The public will see what this discussion is about, where we have our agreements and where we have our disagreements and what it means in their lives. A couple of questions. What your message is to your party and then to the president and his party. Your party first. People come to you, you become speaker. And they say, we've got to try to impeach this president. Democrats demanded it from us all over the country. He's done this. He's done this. He's done this. Impeach, impeach, impeach. We have to probe him. We've got to get the taxes. We have to get after him. Now's our chance. Now's our chance, Madam Speaker. What do you say to those? First of all, what is the motivation? I don't think we should impeach a president for political reasons. But I don't think we should not impeach him because we think it's politically impeding for us to do so. We have to see what the facts are. But you know what? They wanted me to impeach President George W. Bush for going into Iraq. I've never really been completely made well with certain elements on the left for not impeaching the president, for misrepresenting to the country. Maybe he didn't, but his administration did misrepresenting. I knew I was the Adam Schiff of the time, not as great as Adam, but I was the Adam Schiff of the time. And I knew that there was no justification to go into Iraq. And I said at the time, the intelligence does not support the threat. Are you calling the president a liar? I said, no, I'm stating a fact, and that is the fact. So you think you can deal with that type of push? I do. I think the fact that, as I am advertised in the Republican ads, a San Francisco liberal, which I'm proud to be, that with San Francisco values of St. Francis of Assisi, which I'm proud to be an instrument of God's faith, that because I am a liberal, I have a good, shall we say, communication in our ranks on it. That doesn't mean that people won't be calling for it, but it does mean that we have to produce results for the American people. That's why we have our For the People agenda. Lower health care costs, bigger paychecks, integrity in government. That's where we're going. Guns, Dreamers, Equality Act, that there will be some of our priorities. If there's evidence that the president should be impeached, it should be self-evident to the public in a bipartisan way. Impeachment is any removal. Ideally, it would be because otherwise you might get it through the House with your numbers, but you'd never get it through the Senate. What do you have going into 2020? Well, you remember that President Nixon was not impeached. That's right. They just went to see him and said, they showed him the goods. That's right. And even with President Clinton, went through the House. I don't have to tell you, didn't make it through the Senate. What did that wind up meaning politically? On the president's side, Democrats have been quiet about what his signature issue has become. Immigration. There was a little bit, I'd have to push Democrats to get him to say, yeah, I don't like what he says about the migrants. It's not true. But you didn't go toe to toe with him about having better solutions to keep America safe and how to deal with the border than he has. You say there'll be no wall, but should Democrats take the fight to the president and the American people and say, we have a better plan to keep you safe? Here is that plan. My suggestion to all of our campaigns, incumbent and newcomers, was stick with lower health care costs, bigger paychecks and integrity in government. That's going to enable us to do what we need to do on immigration. Do not get engaged in a fight on immigration where the president is not telling the truth to the American people, where they're taking babies out of the arms of their mothers. Isn't that exactly the reason they get involved? He's lying about the migrants. What's happening with the kids? Not in the campaign. Now. Now you'll get it. It's about time. Everything's about timing. Now we can talk about how we can come together and put together bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform. It passed the Senate in a bipartisan way a few years ago. But again, the speaker would not bring it up in the House. That was really a very sad thing for our country that they would not bring it up. You think something happens on immigration? Democrats have to assert, as we always have. We know we have to protect our borders. Our responsibility is to protect and defend. We take an oath when we get sworn into office to protect and defend. We have to protect in a way that protects our borders and honors our values and also recognizes there are 11 million people in this country that we have to address in terms of legalization and perhaps a path to citizenship. It would be good for our economy. When we've had some conversations and panels on the subject of the economy, what one thing could you do to boost the economy that's different from what you're hearing? Comprehensive immigration reform. So this is a bigger discussion about immigration than about President using it as a fear tactic of a thousand miles away. How many will reach here? How many really qualify for asylum under our laws? The evangelicals are great on immigration. They testify to us that the United States refugee resettlement program is the crown jewel of American humanitarianism. And here it's being trashed by the president. This is the evangelicals. And that is the starting point of the new normal. Now that the Democrats have power in the House, we'll see how it's used. We'll see what it does for the American people. But we want to unify, not divide. Everybody says it. Let's see how it gets done. That's our intention. We're here for the American people, not for just the Democrats. Thank you so much.