Rush Transcript: Congressman Dan Goldman Cross Examines Newt Gingrich, Pushes Him to Agree Trump Admin Must Resolve Cases of Wrongfully Deported Migrants

 

Washington, D.C – Congressman Dan Goldman (NY-10) today cross-examined former Speaker of the House and Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich in the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet, where Republican members of Congress repeatedly attacked district judges’ who have ruled against Donald Trump’s lawless executive orders. 

 

The exchange ended with Gingrich agreeing that the Trump administration must resolve the cases of multiple migrants who were wrongfully deported to El Salvador without due process, the opposite of what the Trump administration has argued in court. 
 

 

Rep. Goldman: Mr. Gingrich, I want to focus on some of your testimony today. You say that a judicial coup d'etat is being implemented by judges of the same political ideology. In another statement you said that Judge Boasberg has a clear bias against President Trump. Do you know who appointed Judge Boasberg? 

 

Gingrich: I think his first appointment was by George Bush.  

 

Rep. Goldman: Correct. And we've been talking about nationwide injunctions. There's been a lot of discussion about the injunction on the president's birthright citizenship executive order that was enjoined by Judge Coughenour. Do you know who appointed Judge Coughenour?" 

 

Gingrich: No, I don't.  

 

Rep. Goldman: Ronald Reagan. So, let's just focus on these two Republican appointed judges so we can just remove all the allegations of partisan bias. So, let's focus first on Judge Boasberg’s case, which is the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 law that very specifically applies during war time or if the country is subject to an invasion. 

 

Now, you would agree, I assume, as a former Speaker of the House, that it is Congress's duty to declare war. 

 

Gingrich: I think there's also a provision of that act which says, which does say for invasion. And I think the average American will tell you they feel that we've been invaded. 

 

Rep. Goldman: Okay, good. So are we now supposed to say that the average, your assessment of the average American’s view determines whether or not we are under invasion by Venezuela? So that's what we're supposed to do. 

 

Now, is it, if not the average American, what your testimony is here today is that Donald Trump, because he was elected president, alone, should determine whether or not that law applies without any due process? Is that your testimony? 

 

Gingrich: My position is that the Supreme Court should have the opportunity on a nationwide issue to render, but remember– 

 

Rep. Goldman: Okay, so let me reclaim my time. So basically what you're saying 

then is, the problem here is that Judge Boasberg pre-certified a class. Because of course, it is the exact same legal question for every single person who was removed to El Salvador. And what really should happen is that every single one of those people should have to file their own lawsuits and each district judge should rule on it because that's the difference, the opposite of a nationwide injunction, right? 

 

Gingrich: Actually, as I said several times in the last three hours, there can be a provision by which the Supreme Court takes up that injunction. 

 

Rep. Goldman: So which is it? Do you oppose nationwide injunctions as a judicial coup d'etat? Or do you think nationwide injunctions are appropriate in certain circumstances 

but should have expedited appeal? 

 

Gingrich: I believe that nationwide injunctions by an individual judge is far too much power and that they're– 

 

Rep. Goldman: But so, let's keep on with, with Judge Boasberg’s case. So, he issued, and by the way, he did not issue an order on the underlying issue. He temporarily enjoined the president from whisking off people to another country without due process, so that the legal issue could be resolved. Now, you say expedited appeal, that opinion, that case was already appealed to the district court, the US, the Court of Appeals for the District Court, they've already ruled and by 2 to 1, they kept the temporary injunction in. And it was a Republican appointee. Judge Henderson, who was on, was one of the two. 

 

So the I guess I'm confused as to what the problem is with a temporary nationwide injunction, so that the issue can be resolved, and if necessary, ultimately by the Supreme Court.  

 

It sounds like you agree with me that that is the appropriate, process.  

 

Gingrich: The difference is whether or not you believe, one, that time matters. 

 

Rep. Goldman: Well, this was within a matter of weeks. It's now up before the Supreme Court. That's expedited. And I will say I wholly agree with you. And to my colleague, Mr. Kiley, I would happily work to expedite appeals for nationwide injunctions. I hope my Republican colleagues would work with us to expedite enforcement of congressional subpoenas. The courts take far too long. I agree with you.  

 

But the notion that we do not have due process, and that someone should be removed without due process based on false pretenses, which the administration now admits under a petition for habeas corpus. I would add, Mr. Larkin, and that there's no recourse because their mistake is now out of their control.  

 

I think even you, Mr. Gingrich, would agree with me that when you mistakenly accuse someone of being a gang member and you deport them, that it is incumbent upon you to fix that mistake. Do you agree?  

 

Gingrich: I agree.