Congressional Candidate Eric Early on Impeachment Insanity & Separation of Powers

5 min. read

Eric Early joins Graham Ledger on the "Daily Ledger" to discuss separation of powers in government. Early states that there are violations of the Constitution in this regard. He adds that Congress simply wants "to figure out a way to destroy a President". Ledger and Early also discuss the legalities involved in the rulings by Judge Brown and how it relates to the Executive branch of the government. They also discuss the political race between Eric Early and Adam Schiff. Ledger introduced Early in this topic by endorsing him as a Republican candidate.

Here is an excerpted transcript of the interview:

Ledger: Joining me now from Southern California attorney and congressional candidate for California district 28 which, by the way, is the seat currently held by a gentleman by the name of Adam Schiff, Eric Early. Eric we're going to talk about Adam Schiff in just a moment. But
first, this ruling from a constitutional perspective, I hear a lot of people say executive privilege. To me, it's a little bit of a higher order than that. It's the entire notion of separation of powers that's been built in the checks and balances, as some like to say, the curtains that exists between the article one branch the article 2 branch in the article three branches of government. This notion of separation of powers—if you have the article three branch on behalf of the article one branch compelling the article two branch to do something—this obliterates in my opinion—obliterates the entire notion of separation of powers.

Early: Well thanks for having me Graham. That's what's going on here. You know as everybody knows we're in this incredibly hyper political environment. And that's leading to violations of the Constitution or attempts to violate the Constitution in many areas. And this this partisan judge who was appointed by Barack Obama as Kellyanne Conway said, not surprisingly, is ordering basically Don McGahn to testify before Congress. And I believe that ruling is wrong and as Kellyanne said it's going to go up on appeal. And you have to protect the executive branch's ability to protect privileged information. In this case, information falls within the executive privilege from going out to Congress, especially in an environment where Congress really could care less about the merits. They just want to figure out a way to to destroy a
President. So i'm glad it's going up on appeal and I hope and I believe that the next level of of the court
system will say that the President can assert this privilege and prevent McGahn from testifying.

Ledger: And defend the second that that's the entire notion of separation of powers which is crucial as the foundation—the Constitutional foundation—of this Republic. I want you to put your lawyer cap on, if you will, this judge this Ketanji Brown Jackson, appointed by Barack Obama, went to Harvard, not so coincidentally, and, also, by the way, if you remember, her name and it sounds familiar it's because she blocked earlier this year a Trump immigration deportation policy. But I want to kind of split hairs here because if you look at the ruling from the way I read it, she's compelling McGahn to appear but not necessarily compelling him to testify. And I know there is just a kind of a subtle difference there but in the
end, in terms of a legal matter, and I guess a constitutional and impeachment matter, there's a huge difference there, right. I mean you can be compelled to appear and then you know take the Fifth Amendment or claim executive privilege.

Early: Yeah among other things she's saying McGahn has to show up in front of Congress and every time he doesn't want to answer a question, assert the executive privilege or whatever privilege Mr. McGahn wants to take. And, no, that is not required by the law in cases when the executive, in this case, the President, asserts the executive privilege and says sorry Mr. McGahn is not showing up. He does not have to testify. So you know that's something is gonna have to be ruled on. But the President is well within his rights to do it. And one thing I'd say is you know look back in the day when Eric Holder refused to testify before Congress these Congressional subpoenas don't have the teeth that court subpoenas have and what we're dealing with here right now is a congressional subpoena. So you know we have to protect executive privilege. There's got to be a solid basis behind asserting the privilege, of course. But here we have the President and the Chief White House Counsel. They should be able to speak and their conversations should
be able to be the subject of executive privilege.

Ledger: And it's a Congressional subpoena that should be respected and honored if it doesn't violate the law. If it doesn't violate the United States Constitution and, oh by the way, as an attorney, I'm sure you would agree with me—cold day in hell that you would ever have the President  of the United States appear
before Adam Schiff which leads me to the guy that you are opposing in Los Angeles.