‘I Am Appalled’: Darrell Issa Sounds Off On ‘Organized Weaponization’ Against Trump By Biden & DOJ

4 months ago

During a House Weaponization Committee hearing on Wednesday, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) questioned witnesses about the Watergate scandal, attorney-client privilege and the indictments against former President Trump.

Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:

https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript

Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com

Transcript

00:00Thank you. It's one of those funny things about written statements. People often

00:05come and they haven't timed them. Ms. Weinbanks, you obviously have began your

00:14career, relatively early in your career, with the Watergate investigation. Wasn't

00:21one of the major things that President Nixon was accused of, the weaponization

00:26of government, using the IRS and so on, wasn't that part of the the final

00:30impeachment draft? Right, I was not directly involved in the impeachment, in

00:35the prosecution, but you are correct. The impeachment charge misused power. So we

00:39are exactly where you started your career, ma'am. We are seeing the

00:44weaponization. Richard Milhous Nixon was accused, and there was plenty of evidence,

00:48that he thought the IRS and other tactics would be perfectly acceptable

00:53against his political enemies. Here we are again. So one of the questions I'm

00:59going to ask all of your attorneys, is that correct? All of you understand the

01:05ethics of the American Bar Association. All of you understand the question of

01:11what can be waived in the in attorney-client privilege, correct? Yes. I'll

01:15go right down. Ms. Weinbanks, is it in fact your prerogative to waive attorney-

01:21client privilege? Do you have that right under the ethics rules? I do not. Correct.

01:26Only my client does. Exactly. Only your client can waive it. Mr. Hamilton, same,

01:30right? Correct. Mr. Trustee? Same. Mr. Kustelow? Yes, which is why I have a written document of the waiver with me. And so, although you have a waiver from your client,

01:43your client, well, let's just say Mr. Cohen, did not have a waiver from President

01:50Trump. Is that correct? Absolutely. Have any of you, either individually or seen other

01:56people, other attorneys, other than Mr. Cohen, tape their client and then turn it

02:02over for a prosecution or other use ever? Any of you? Never. No. No. Ms. Weinbanks,

02:08it's kind of interesting that what hung President Nixon was in fact, to a

02:13great extent, the tapes he made. But he made them, correct? He made them and they

02:18were evidence of crime. And so they fall within a crime fraud exception. And they

02:24proved the crime. They were the actual commission of crime. Exactly. Thank you

02:28very much. Mr. Castellano? Castello. Castello. I'm sorry. I'll take my reading

02:33glasses off. I'll do much better. We're dealing with an unusual situation. We

02:39have a president who was, a former president, who was never charged with any

02:42crimes until he announced and became the lead candidate to run for president. Is

02:48that correct? Yes. Quite a coincidence. I don't believe in coincidences happening

02:52that often. Neither do I. Neither do you. So, the question I have for you here

02:57today is, have you ever seen, uncoordinated, a series of state and

03:07federal indictments of any candidate or any, any other person like this where

03:13they're, they're, they're, they're indicted in a state they never went to. They're

03:17indicted for documents that they had in their possession that they say they

03:21declassified and that they have a right to declassify. They, they get indicted for

03:28a misdemeanor that has already run its statute of limitations, but by linking it

03:34to a federal offense which the state doesn't have the right to charge, they

03:39make the case and they're now trying that. Have you ever seen anything close

03:42to that in your decades of practice? No, not at all. So, Trustee, have you ever seen

03:48so many indictments that are novel in how they're put together? I have not. I'd

03:54maybe use the word inventive, but either way, I'm with you on the point. Mr.

03:58Hamilton, have you ever seen, and you know, you're apparently the junior one

04:02here, have you ever seen or researched or learned about such a broad array of

04:08novel or inventive prosecutions as President Trump is dealing with?

04:13Absolutely not. Ms. Weinbanks, I respect your years of

04:18practicing as an attorney. Have you ever seen so many charges coming, dating back

04:25so many years, but only coming to pass at this time? I have. When did you see them?

04:32Well, let's go back to the fact that it takes a long time to investigate that

04:38there was reason for, for example, in the New York... No, no, I was asking for, I was

04:42asking for another example, and since you don't have one, let me just close. I've

04:47been up here for 24 years. I was a soldier when Nixon was president. I am

04:55appalled that what began with Watergate as a legitimate scandal of the

05:01wrongdoing has now become an organized weaponization by this president and his

05:06Department of Justice. With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

‘I Am Appalled’: Darrell Issa Sounds Off On ‘Organized Weaponization’ Against Trump By Biden & DOJ

Category

Transcript

Recommended