LAWLER AND CHUCK STOKES ALONG
WITH DEVIN SCILLIAN.
HERE IS THE RUN DOWN.
A CONVICTED FELON ELECTED TO THE
HOUSE, WILL HE BE SEATED.
AND NEWLY ELECTED HOUSE
DEMOCRATIC LEADER TIM GREIMEL
MAKES HIS DEBUT.
ALL THIS MANDATORY COMING UP
RIGHT NOW, "OFF THE RECORD."
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
>>> NOW THIS EDITION OF "OFF THE
RECORD" WITH TIM SKUBICK.
>>> WELCOME TO THIS EDITION
WHERE WE HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE
ELECT BRIAN BANKS WHO IS A
CONVICTED FELON AS FOR CHECK
BOUNCING AND THERE IS A QUESTION
WHETHER HE MAY BE SEATED OR NOT.
SHOUT STORY PLAYING IN DETROIT?
>> EVERYBODY COVERED IT LEADING
UP TO IT.
YET, HOW DID IT HAPPEN PEOPLE
ASK IT'S A HEALTHY REMINDER WE
WANT TO TAKE POTENCY OUT OF
ELECTIONS BUT WE WILL BE IN BIG
TROUBLE WHEN WE DON'T THERE IS
NO NEED TO GET TO THE POLLS.
THESE ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS,
HANGING IN THE BALANCE.
>> Tim: HERE IS THE POINT.
PEOPLE IN DETROIT KNEW ABOUT HIS
RECORD AND THEY VOTED HIM IN.
>> HE GOT 68% OF THE VOTE.
THE FLIP SIDE OF THAT FOR MANY
OTHER PEOPLE THAT HE IS
REPRESENTING, THEY LOOK AT THAT
AND IT'S AN INSPIRATION AND TAKE
YOURSELF, SOMEBODY WHO HAS DONE
WRONG AND TURN YOURSELF AROUND
AND GET AN EDUCATION MAKE GOOD.
WHEN FIRST IT JUST LOOKED LIKE
IT HAPPENED EIGHT YEARS AGO AND
HE IS NOW ON THE RIGHT PATH.
DID HE REALLY LEARN HIS LESSON.
WHAT HE HAS DONE RECENTLY HE HAS
CHARGES FROM SEVERAL LAWSUITS
OUT THERE IN TERMS BAD CHECK
WRITING.
>> Tim: DIDN'T PAY HIS CAMPAIGN
OFFICE?
>> ONE THING AFTER ANOTHER.
>> Tim: THIS IS NOT A GOOD WEEK.
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN SHE SHOWS UP
TO BE SEATED?
>> I THINK THERE IS A GOOD
CHANCE THAT REPUBLICANS WILL
FORCE A VOTE ON HIM.
>> Tim: BEFORE THEY SEAT HIM?
>> I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD TIME
FOR THEM TO DO IT BECAUSE PEOPLE
HAVE TO TAKE A STAND FOR A
CONVICTED FELON THAT MAY HAVE
MORE IN THE WORKS.
>> THE CONSTITUTION IS QUITE
CLEAR YOU CAN'T SEATED A PERSON
FOR A BREACH OF THE PUBLIC TRUST
AND A FELONY.
SO IS EIGHT BREACH OF THE PUBLIC
TRUST.
WE'RE NOT ALL ATTORNEYS BUT WE
PLAY ONE ON TV.
HOW WILL THIS COME DOWN?
>> SIMILARLY WE SEE THE HOME
RULE ARGUMENTS COME UP ALL THE
TIME.
WHO SHOULD BE MAKING A DECISION
ON THIS.
MY FOLKS ON DISTRICT ONE WHO HAS
THE MOST AT STAKE.
CHUCK IS RIGHT THERE.
IS PRECEDENT FOR REDEMPTION
STORIES.
JOHNSON WHO HAS HAD A GOOD
CAREER SINCE THEN.
>> WHEN YOU HAVE BEEN KICKED OUT
OF TWO PLACES RECENTLY FOR NOT
BEING ABLE TO A MAKE YOUR
PAYMENTS AND LOSE YOUR CAR.
>> I WONDER IF THE VOTERS HAD
KNOWN ABOUT THE MOST RECENT
STUFF PRIOR TO ELECTION.
>> Tim: DIDN'T THEY KNOW THAT.
>> I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH PRIOR
TO ELECTION DAY AND THERE IS
TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF POTENTIAL.
>> IT SAYS SOMETHING ABOUT THE
FORGONE CONCLUSION ABOUT THE
ELECTION THE WAY MANY OF THE
DISTRICTS ARE CARVED.
>> Tim: THERE WAS NO WAY HE
COULD LOSE IT?
>> I THINK THERE IS GOING TO BE
A QUESTION ABOUT RESIDENCY.
HIS CURRENT LANDLORD HE HAS NOT
PAID RENT FOR NOVEMBER.
NOT RETURNING PHONE CALLS.
THERE WILL BE A POINT HE CAN'T
RUN IN THAT DISTRICT.
>> IT'S A PUBLIC TRUST ISSUE.
IT'S GOT TO BE MORE GERMANE AS A
FITNESS FOR OFFICE, HAS A HARD
TIME BALANCING MY CHECKPOINT.
>> WHAT TYPE OF RESIDENT DO YOU
WANT.
IS THIS A SHINING EXAMPLE OF
GOOD REPRESENTATION AND THE BEST
YOU CAN HAVE, NOT JUST IN TERMS
OF EVERYTHING BUT CHARACTER.
>> Tim: YOU PICK UP THE
REPUBLICANS IN THE HOUSE ARE
PERTURBED AND THEY WENT AFTER
THE SPEAKER.
IS THIS A PAY BACK.
I'M NOT SAYING IT IS RIGHT OR
WRONG?
>> I PICKED UP ON THE CHATTER
BUT I DON'T THINK THIS IS
SPECIFICALLY A VEHICLE.
WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT A 55
SPLIT, BUT I THINK THERE ARE
OTHER THINGS.
>> Tim: ANOTHER WAY AROUND THE
CONSTITUTION.
THIS ISN'T A BREACH OF THE
PUBLIC TRUST.
YOU SEE THEM AND PROCEED TO
EXPEL THEM AND THEN YOU DON'T
HAVE THE WAY TO GO IN WHICH IS
THE WORST WAY TO START A NEW
YEAR.
GOVERNOR SNYDER, WILL THESE GUYS
EVER LET ME DO WHAT I WANT TO
DO?
>> AND HE MAY HAVE DIFFICULTY
FROM HIS OWN CAUCUS WHICH HE MAY
NOT WANT AND RIGHT TO WORK MAY
BE HIS WORST NIGHTMARE.
>> THE VENGEFUL IDEA HERE SOME
THAT WE'RE READY TO CALL THE
RIGHT TO WORK BILL THE BOB KING,
WE HAD A DOG THAT WAS ASLEEP AND
YOU WENT AND KICKED IT.
I'M NOT SURE I WOULD BUY IF
THERE WAS A RIGHT TO WORK THAT
WAS STARTING TO BREW ANYWAY.
>> Tim: VERY GOOD GUYS.
[ LAUGHTER ]
>> I GUESS I MISSED THAT, OKAY?
>> I'VE BEEN GOING TO PUSH IT.
WILL THEY DO THIS IN LAME DUCK?
>> I THINK LAME DUCK, LOOKING AT
THE CONVERSATIONS THAT HAVE
HAPPENED IN OTHER STATES, YOU
WANT IT AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
YOU DON'T WANT PEOPLE SLEEPING
OR GIVE THAT MUCH TIME TO
ORGANIZE.
>> THEY ARE SENDING PRESS
RELEASES AND E-MAILS THIS IS
PERFECT TIME TO DO THAT.
THEY HAVE ALL THE POWER.
IF YOU CAN'T DO IT NOW WHEN CAN
YOU DO IT?
>> THE QUESTION COMES WHAT IS
THE GOVERNOR GOING TO DO WITH
THIS.
>> I THINK HE WILL BE ASKED BY
G.O.P. TO PROVE HIS
REPUBLICAN-NESS.
THIS ISN'T A FIGHT HE WANTED
PROBABLY FOR GOOD REASON BUT
PROBABLY UNVOIDABLE.
>>> WE HAVE CROSS-EXAMINED IT
AND HE STAYS ON MESSAGE.
HE SAYS THIS IS NOT ON MY AGENDA
BUT YOU CAN READ THAT TO BE
ANYTHING.
[ LAUGHTER ]
>> HERE IS A MAN THAT ALWAYS
SAYS THAT HE IS NOT WORRIED
ABOUT REELECTION.
THAT IS NOT A CONCERN OF HIS,
BUT HOW MANY PEOPLE FIT IN THAT
JOB AND DON'T WORRY ABOUT
GETTING ON SECOND TERM BECAUSE
IT'S HARD TO DO EVERYTHING YOU
WANT TO DO IN FOUR YEARS TIME.
IF HE DOES -- IT'S A CAMPAIGN
ISSUE THAT WANT TO USE IT
AGAINST HIM.
>> Tim: WE HAVE TO GO BACK TO
THE DISCUSSIONS HE HAD WITH
ORGANIZED LABOR THAT FAILED TO
KEEP IT OFF THE BALLOT.
THEY SAID, GOVERNOR, JUST SAY
YOU WILL VETO THIS.
WE KNOW WE HE COULDN'T DO IT IT
WOULD BE SUICIDE FOR HIM, RIGHT?
>> WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT
REELECTION I THINK IT WOULD OPEN
HIM UP TO A PRIMARY, A RIGHT TO
WORK REPUBLICAN, LOOK THE
GOVERNOR, WOULDN'T SUPPORT THIS.
>> Tim: WOULD IT MAKE ANY
DIFFERENCE IF WE PASSED RIGHT TO
WORK.
THE JURY IS SPLIT ON THIS, DOES
IT NOT?
IT DOESN'T CREATE JOBS?
>> THE TRACK RECORD, I DON'T
THINK THERE IS ENOUGH SOLID
TRACK RECORD THERE.
PEOPLE WANT TO POINT TO THE
STATES THAT RIGHT TO WORK HAS
BEEN PART OF IT.
YOU LOOK AT THE SOUTHERN STATES
AND SOME OF THE OTHER ILLS AND
POVERTY RATES AND EDUCATION
SYSTEM, IT'S HARD TO ADD UP THAT
IT MEANS SUCCESS.
THE SYMBOLISM IS WHERE IT WOULD
MEAN A LOT TO A LOT OF PEOPLE ON
BOTH SIDES.
>> IT WOULD BE A POPULAR ISSUE
FROM STATE TO STATE, INDIANA AND
WISCONSIN.
IT'S ALWAYS BEEN ONE OF THOSE
THINGS THAT IS ACCEPTABLE LIKE
TENNESSEE WHERE I USED TO LIVE
BUT NOW IT'S MOVING ITS WAY
NORTH.
>> IT'S DOING IT IN TEXAS BUT
THEY ARE GOING TO LEAVE THE
COUNTRY SO IT'S IRRELEVANT.
[ LAUGHTER ]
>> LEAVING THE REST OF THE
UNITED STATES, EXACTLY.
>> AND ALL THE DO-GOODERS, WHAT
IS WRONG WITH THE PROCESS?
>> THE ONE THING PEOPLE POINT
TO -- YOU ARE PAYING PEOPLE TO
HAVE A POSITION PUTS ON PEOPLE
WHO DON'T NECESSARILY.
IT'S NOT THE GRASSROOTS MASSES
OF PEOPLE THAT THE CONSTITUTION
ENVISIONED BY TAKING THIS ON.
IT'S PEOPLE THAT GET A DOLLAR A
SIGNATURE.
>> ON THE ONE HAND, THERE IS
SOMETHING ICKY ABOUT THAT BUT
DIDN'T IT WORK?
DIDN'T THE PROCESS PLAY OUT.
PEOPLE SEEM TO BE NOT REALLY OF
THE MIND OF THE CONSTITUTION ALL
THAT MUCH.
DESPITE $150 MILLION SPENT ON
SPECIAL INTEREST ADVERTISING,
THEY SAID NO TO EVERYTHING.
>> THE RESULTS ALONE STOP US
FROM BECOMING LIKE CALIFORNIA OR
OTHER TYPE OF REFERENDUM STATES.
THE MESSAGE MAY BE CLEAR, WE
AREN'T BUYING THAT AND DON'T PUT
THIS REFERENDUM STUFF.
PART OF THE REASON WE'RE
STARTING TO SEE THESE
REFERENDUMS IS BECAUSE OF THE
FACT THAT REPUBLICANS CONTROL
EVERYTHING IN THEIR STATE AND
DEMOCRATS AND LEGISLATURE FEEL
WE CAN'T GET ANYTHING THROUGH
THE NORMAL SYSTEM.
LET'S GO AROUND THE SYSTEM.
>> LABOR WOULD BE EXHIBIT "A"
AND ANTI-TAX PEOPLE ON PROP 5,
SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN THROUGH THAT
THROUGH.
THAT IS THE ARGUMENT.
AT THE END OF THE DAY PEOPLE
VOTING INTELLIGENTLY ON THESE
BALLOT PROPOSALS REGARDLESS OF
HOW THEY GOT THERE.
>> IT SPEAKS WELL.
PROPOSAL 6 I DON'T THINK ANYBODY
THINK THINKS THE BRIDGE ADS WERE
ABOVE BOARD AND PEOPLE WERE ABLE
TO SEE THE OTHER SIDE BEING
WILDLY OUTSPENT.
I'M NOT TRYING TO WEIGH IN WHAT
IS RIGHT OR WRONG, BUT THE ADS
WERE DIFFICULT.
EVERY TRUTH TELLING SERUM THAT
WAS APPLIED TO THE ADS THISWERE
DISHONEST.
>> WE HAVE LEGISLATION COMING
FROM REPRESENTATIVE HORN TO
CHANGE PART OF THE SYSTEM.
>> YEAH, I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE
CHANGES WOULD ENTAIL.
>> Tim: IN CONGRESSIONAL
DISTRICTS, INSTEAD ALL THE NAMES
DOWN IN DETROIT YOU NEED NAMES
IN EACH DISTRICT.
IT'S MORE BROADER THING.
YOU PAY THE CIRCULATERS BUT THE
COURTS SAY IT'S FREE SPEECH, YOU
ARE NOT PAYING FOR THE NAMES BUT
THE PERSON TO CIRCULATE.
>> I THINK IT'S STICKY THING.
>> THESE DISTRICTS HAVE BEEN SO
SURGICALLY CARVED.
YOU MAY BE CREATING A DIFFICULT
LITMUS TEST.
REPRESENTATIVE, PLEASE....
>> WITH JUST EIGHT MONTHS UNDER
HIS BELT AS REPRESENTATIVE FROM
PONTIAC AND AUBURN HILLS, TIM
GREIMEL WAS JUST ELECTED HOUSE
DEMOCRATIC LEADER.
HE IS A LABOR AND CIVE RIGHTS
ATTORNEY SERVED FOR SEVEN YEARS
ON HIS LOCAL SCHOOL BOARD
INCLUDING A TERM AS PRESIDENT.
HE WAS ELECTED TO THE OAKLAND
COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS IN
2007.
HE EARNED HIS DEGREES FROM THE
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN.
>> REPRESENTATIVE,
CONGRATULATIONS ON THE ELECTION?
>> THANK YOU, TIM.
IT'S GREAT TO BE ON THE SHOW.
>> Tim: THIS IS YOUR DEBUT.
>> THAT IS RIGHT.
THIS MY FIRST TIME ON "OFF THE
RECORD" AND I'M EXCITED TO BE
HERE.
>> YOU MADE IT THROUGH THE
CAUCUS BUT WHAT ARE YOU DOING
THROUGH THE TRANSITION PERIOD?
>> THERE IS LOTS OF WORK TO DO
OBVIOUSLY.
THERE ARE TWO THINGS WE ARE
WORKING VERY DILIGENTLY.
ONE IS PREPARING FOR LAME DUCK
AND ANY LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS
THAT THE REPUBLICANS WILL PUSH
FOR LAME DUCK AND THE OTHER IS
NEXT TERM.
IT STARTS IN JANUARY AND THERE
IS COMMITTEE TO MAKE DECISIONS
ABOUT.
THERE ARE NUMBER OF OTHER
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS.
>> WHAT TERM LIMITS HAVE DONE TO
INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE.
YOU WERE JUST ELECTED SEVEN
MONTHS AGO AND HERE YOU ARE A
DEMOCRATIC LEADER.
DO YOU FIND IT "A" SURPRISING
BUT ALSO "B" DAUNTING.
MY HUNCH YOU BARELY LEARNED
WHERE THE BATHROOMS ARE IN THE
CAPITAL?
>> I WOULDN'T GO THAT FAR.
IT'S CERTAINLY TRUE THIS HAS
BEEN A QUICK LEARNING PERIOD FOR
DEMOCRATIC LEADER.
I'M HONORED BY THE TRUST OF MY
COLLEAGUES HAVE PUT IN ME TO
LEAD THE CAUCUS US.
IT'S A TEAM EFFORT.
WE'RE GOING TO APPROACH THIS AS
A TEAM AS A DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS.
I HAVE A VERY SPECIFIC VISION
FOR WHAT THE CAUCUS CAN DO AND
YOU ARE RIGHT ABOUT THE TERM
LIMITS AND LACK OF KNOWLEDGE
THAT COMES WITH THAT.
THAT IS ONE OF NICE THINGS ABOUT
ME STEPPING INTO THE DEMOCRATIC
LEADER ROLE.
I CAN PORNLLY SERVE IN THAT
CAPACITY FOR SIX YEARS.
IF I RUN FOR ANOTHER OFFICE
MAYBE I WONDER SERVE AS THIRD
TERM BUT I CAN MENTOR THE THEN
DEMOCRATIC LEADER.
EITHER WAY IT PROVIDES
LEADERSHIP OF THE DEMOCRATIC
PARTY.
WE HAVE VERY SERIOUS CONCERNS
THEY MIGHT TRY TO PUSH RIGHT TO
WORK.
IT'S BAD FOR MICHIGAN.
IT'S BAD FOR MIDDLE-CLASS AND
WORKING FAMILIES.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE STATES THAT
HAVE RIGHT TO WORK LAWS THEY
HAVE MUCH LOWER PAY FOR WORKERS
THAN MICHIGAN DOES AND HAVE
HIGHER UNEMPLOYMENT RATES.
IT'S A VERY SERIOUS CONCERN OF
OURS.
I MADE IT CLEAR TO SPEAKER
BOLGER IF THE REPUBLICANS PUSH
RIGHT TO WORK THAT THEY CAN
EXPECT US NOT TO PROVIDE ANY
COOPERATION ON A NUMBER OF OTHER
BILLS THAT SHOULD BE VERY
BIPARTISAN IN NATURE.
IF THEY PUSH RIGHT TO WORK, THAT
IS DIVISIVE ISSUE AND IT'S GOING
SOUR AND POISON THE ATMOSPHERE
IN LANSING.
>> IS THAT AN ULTIMATUM?
>> I WOULDN'T DESCRIBE IT AS
THAT.
PUSHING RIGHT TO, WORK IS SUCH A
DISASTROUS POLICY FOR MICHIGAN.
>> SOMETHING IN THE OTHER
DIRECTION?
>> I DON'T THINK SO.
I KNOW THAT IS HOW THE
REPUBLICANS WOULD LIKE TO
DESCRIBE PROPOSAL 2, BUT THE
FACT OF THE MATTER IS PROPOSAL 2
WAS NOT ABOUT RIGHT TO WORK.
PROPOSAL 2 WOULD HAVE DONE A LOT
MORE THAN JUST PREVENT US....
>> BUT IT WAS ATTACKED
REPUBLICANS?
>> THERE WAS LOST DISCUSSION
ABOUT PUSHING RIGHT TO WORK.
>> IT WAS TIPPING POINT?
>> I WOULDN'T KNOW IF I WOULD
SAY THAT.
I THINK THE REPUBLICANS WOULD
LIKE TO USE THIS AS AN EXCUSE
FOR RIGHT TO WORK.
I DON'T THINK THIS IS RULE CAUSE
OF THEIR WANTED RIGHT TO WORK.
I JUST WANT TO SAY THERE IS A
LOT OF REASONS WHY PROPOSAL 2
FAILED.
PART OF IT PEOPLE NOT WANTED
RIGHT TO WORK BUT RATHER THEY
HAD CONCERNS A NUMBER OF THESE
POLICIES IN THE CONSTITUTION.
OF COURSE, THERE WERE VERY
MISLEADING ADS ON OTHER SIDE
PASSING PROPOSAL 2 WOULD OPEN
THE DOOR TO CHILD MOLESTERS AND
DRUNK TEACHERS.
IT WAS A BUNCH OF NONSENSE.
>> DO YOU THINK THE REPUBLICAN
CAUCUS FOLLOWS THE GOVERNOR'S
LEAD ENOUGH AND HAS THE GOVERNOR
BEEN FORCEFUL ENOUGH WHAT HE
DOES OR DOES NOT WANT?
>> IT'S NOT SECRET THAT THE
GOVERNOR AND LEGISLATURE HAVE
NOT BEEN ON THE SAME PAGE ON A
NUMBER OF ISSUES.
>> WHAT DOES THAT SUGGEST TO YOU
ABOUT THE GOVERNOR AND
LEGISLATURE?
>> I THINK IT'S DIFFERENT
PRIORITIES.
A NUMBER OF REPUBLICAN
LEGISLATORS ARE LITTLE MORE
EXTREME IN PUSHING A FAR RIGHT
AGENDA THAN THE GOVERNOR IS.
THE GOVERNOR HAS PROPOSED A
NUMBER OF POLICIES THAT SHOULD
BE BIPARTISAN IN NATURE.
THERE ARE A LOT OF POLICIES THAT
THE GOVERNOR HAS PROPOSED THAT
WE WOULD LIKE TO WORK WITH HIM
AND WORK TOGETHER ACROSS THE
AISLE.
>> DO YOU SEE THAT AS AN EXAMPLE
WHAT HAPPENED NATIONALLY IN
TERMS OF THE PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTION AND IS REPUBLICAN PARTY
PERHAPS BEING IN DISARRAY IN
WHAT IT WANTS TO DO?
>> I THINK WE HAVE SEEN SOME
PUSHBACK ON MOST EXTREME
ELEMENTS IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY
IN THE TEA PARTY.
IF YOU LOOK AT SENATE ARRESTS IN
INDIANA AND OUTLANDISH COMMENTS
THE REPUBLICAN SENATE MADE.
IF YOU LOOK AT REPUBLICANS
ALIENATED SIGNIFICANT PORTIONS
OF THE AMERICAN POPULATION BY
TAKING EXTREMIST POSITIONS ON
IMMIGRATION I THINK THEY WANTED
FOLKS TO ROLL UP THEIR SLEEVES
AND FOCUS ON SOLUTIONS INSTEAD
OF I HAD YOMG AND RHETORIC.
>> WHAT ISSUES WILL YOU PUSH FOR
TO BE ABLE TO MAKE SURE THAT
DEMOCRATS HAVE A BIGGER VOICE IN
THE LEGISLATURE WHICH THEY HAVE
NOW WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY NOW
MAYBE WOULD SAY?
>> NUMBER ONE, I THINK WE'LL
HAVE A LITTLE MORE INFLUENCE IN
THE LEGISLATURE AS A RESULT OF
PICKING UP SEATS IN THIS
ELECTION.
THERE WILL BE SOME ADDITIONAL
OPPORTUNITIES TO MAKE A
MEANINGFUL DIFFERENCE ON POLICY.
HOPEFULLY THE RESULTS THEMSELVES
AND REPUBLICANS' MAJORITY IN THE
LEGISLATURE WILL MODERATE THEIR
POLICY AGENDA.
THERE ARE SPECIFIC PROPOSALS
THAT THE GOVERNOR HAS PUT FORTH,
ONE IS THE TRANSIT AUTHORITY FOR
SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN THAT OUR
POLICIES THAT DEMOCRATS BY AND
LARGE SUPPORT.
WE WANT TO WORK WITH THE
GOVERNOR TO ACHIEVE THOSE VERY
ROOL REAL SOLUTIONS TO REAL
ECONOMIC CHALLENGES FACING OUR
STATE.
>> YOU MENTIONED YOU WOULD VOTE
ON IT NOW?
>> IT'S AN ISSUE WE ARE LOOKING
AT SERIOUSLY AT.
WE TAKE IT VERY SERIOUSLY.
WE BELIEVE ETHICS ARE EXTREMELY
IMPORTANT TO THE STATE HOUSE.
THAT GOES FOR REPRESENTATIVES ON
BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE.
WE BELIEVE REPRESENTATIVES HAVE
TO BE HELD TO A HIGH ETHICAL
STANDARDS AND THEY SHOULD BE
HELD ACCOUNTABLE.
THE STATE HOUSE SHOULDN'T
OVERSTEP IT'S CONSTITUTIONAL
AUTHORITY IN OVERRIDING THE WILL
OF THE PEOPLE OF THE FIRST
DISTRICT.
WE'RE LOOKING VERY CAREFULLY AT
THIS.
WE'RE LOOKING AT THE LIEU.
WE'RE DEVELOPING AN APPROACH TO
MOVE FORWARD AS A CAUCUS AND
SIMILAR CRITERIA WHAT WAS THE
NATURE OF THE FELONIES.
DO THEY INDICATE A BREACH OF THE
PUBLIC TRUST?
WERE THEY COMMITTED WHILE SOON
TO BE REPRESENTATIVE BANKS WAS
IN OFFICE OR OUT OF OFFICE?
TO WHAT EXTENT IS THE STATE HAS
PURVIEW TO OVERRIDE THE PEOPLE
IN THE FIRST DISTRICT?
>> IF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAD
DONE A BETTER JOB OF SCREENING
THEIR CANDIDATES?
>> THIS WAS NOT -- THIS WAS A
PRIMARY ELECTION.
IT WASN'T SOMETHING THAT THE
DEMOCRATIC PARTY GOT INVOLVED
IN.
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY --
>> THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY ELECTING
NEVER GETS INVOLVED IN CONTESTED
PRIMARIES.
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY FEELS VERY
STRONGLY THAT THOSE KINDS OF
DECISIONS SHOULD BE LEFT TO
DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY VOTERS.
>> HAVE YOU MADE UP YOUR MIND
WHETHER THIS GENTLEMAN SHOULD BE
SEATED?
>> I HAVE DISCUSSIONS WITH BANKS
AND WE ARE STILL LOOKING AT
OPTIONS.
>> Tim: HAVE YOU TALKED TO THE
REPUBLICAN LEADER ABOUT THIS?
>> WE HAVE HAD A BRIEF
CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS AND
NOTHING DEFINITIVE.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE CONTINUING
CONVERSATIONS.
>> Tim: DID HE SAY WE'RE GOING
TO WORK ON THIS OR THEY ARE NOT
GOING TO SEAT HIM?
>> HE DID NOT SAY ANYTHING
DEFINITIVE ABOUT WHAT THE
REPUBLICANS MIGHT DO.
HE AND YOU ARE MEMBERS OF BOTH
CAUCUSES ARE LOOKING AT OPTIONS
AND MOVING FORWARD.
>> HOW THE BANKS DECISION COULD
IMPACT AN INDICTMENT OF HIM
GOING TO SPEAKER BOG GEV?
>> IF THE GRAND JURY DECIDE IF
THEY WANT TO CHARGE SPEAKER
BOLGER THAT WILL CHANGE DYNAMICS
IN THE HOUSE.
I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE THAT
YOU BRING THAT UP.
CERTAINLY BRIAN BANKS WAS
CONVICTED OF SOME FELONIES, A
NUMBER OF YEARS AGO.
THERE ARE NO CRIMINAL CHARGES
PENDING AGAINST BYIAN BANKS,
THAT IS IN CONTRAST TO THE
SPEAKER WHO IS UNDER CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATION -- WELL, WE CAN
TALK MORE ABOUT THAT IF YOU
WANT.
IN TERMS OF SPEAKER BOLGER HE IS
NOT CONVICTED OR CHARGED OF ANY
CRIMES.
HE IS SUBJECT TO A CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATION THAT RELATED TO
HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY IN THE
HOUSE.
>> YOU GUYS ARE GOING AFTER
BOGGER AND MAKE IT A
TIT-FOR-TAT?
>> I'M NOT SAYING THAT.
ALL OF OUR OPTIONS FORWARD.
>> ONE WOULD GET THE IMPRESSION
IF THEY GO AFTER THIS ONE TOO
MUCH, WE'VE GOT BOLGER.
>> I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT
THOSE THAT CRITICIZE BRIAN BANKS
ARE FAIR HANDED AND EVEN HANDED
IN THEIR APPROACH HERE.
JUST AS THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISIONS, I THINK THERE IS AN
ARGUMENT THEY DON'T APPLY TO
BRIAN BANKS.
THERE IS A QUESTION WHETHER THE
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST BRIAN BANKS
HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY OF BREACH OF
PUBLIC TRUST.
I THINK THE ALLEGATIONS PERTAIN
TO HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY.
>> DOES AN INDICTMENT FOR A
GRAND JURY PROVIDE REASON FOR
EXPULSION?
>> I DON'T THINK UNDER THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS THAT I
AM FAMILIAR WITH THAT AN
INDICTMENT ALONE IS SUFFICIENT
FOR AN EXPULSION.
IT SEEMS TO BE THE CASE IT HAS
TO BE A CONVICTION.
THERE MAY BE OTHER PROVISIONS
OUT THERE THAT I'M NOT AWARE OF.
IT WOULD BE PROBLEMATIC IN THE
SPEAKER'S POSITION WHILE BEING
UNDER INDICTMENT BUT HE IS NOT
INDICT YET.
I DON'T WANT TO ANSWER QUESTIONS
THAT ARE HYPOTHETICAL.
>>> IT MIGHT BE IN QUESTION IF
THERE WAS AN INDICTMENT?
>> ULTIMATELY THAT IS SOMETHING
THE MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE IS
GOING TO DECIDE.
>> WITH A NUDGE FROM THE BEES.
THANKS FOR JOINING US.
WE'RE AT OUR WEBSITE AND
FACEBOOK AND TWITTER.
WE'LL SEE YOU NEXT WEEK ON "OFF
THE RECORD".
¶
¶
¶
Generated by CCExtractor
http://ccextractor.sourceforge.net