CNN "The Situation Room" - Transcript: Interview With Connecticut Congressman Jim Himes

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

BLITZER: Potentially very significant developments unfolding in the coming days and weeks.

Thanks very much, Sara Murray, for that report.

Let's get some more on all of this.

Democratic Congressman Jim Himes of Connecticut is joining us. He is a member of the House Intelligence Committee. Congressman, thanks so much for joining us.

The president, as you heard, he says he didn't know anything about Matthew Whitaker's views on the Mueller investigation before he appointed him the acting attorney general. Is that really plausible?

REP. JIM HIMES (D), CONNECTICUT: No, it is not even close to plausible.

There is no question in my mind that the Whitaker thing, the timing, the individual, of course, the timing was after the elections, immediately after the elections, in such a way as to distract from what actually happened in the elections. It didn't affect the elections, which I think he probably got some advice on.

And, of course, no, Whitaker is probably the low watermark of who the president's people said the president could put in that position without getting laughed out of town.

BLITZER: You have said that at the very least Whitaker should recuse himself from any involvement in the Russia probe. What do you make of the lawsuit that today was filed by three Democratic senators to challenge the constitutionality of his appointment?

HIMES: Yes, well, I'm probably the wrong guy to ask, not even being a lawyer, but I will say that the Constitution is pretty clear that principal officers of the United States will be Senate-confirmed.

And, you know, so my guess is that they have got some merit to this suit. Look, my Republican friends should also remember, and I think that in the back of their mind they are beginning to remember that this president is setting some precedents that will be very uncomfortable the next time -- and it will happen -- there is a Democratic president, whether it is not releasing the tax returns or just appointing a buddy of yours who is going to be convenient to you to be attorney general or not, deciding that you don't want to testify to the special counsel.

All of these things are precedents that will come back to haunt a Senator Lindsey Graham or any Republican when they want to do oversight on a Democratic president.

BLITZER: The president defended Whitaker by tweeting -- and I'm going to put it on the screen, although I'm not going to read one of the words in that tweet.

"So funny to see little Adam" -- he is referring to Adam Schiff, the expected House Intelligence Committee chairman -- "talking about the fact that acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker was not approved by the Senate, but not mentioning the fact that Bob Mueller, who is highly conflicted, was not approved by the Senate."

I want to get your reaction, but first specifically to the vulgar way he describes your colleague Adam Schiff.

HIMES: Well, Wolf, what is there to say? This is a president who has called a woman that used to work for him a

dog, that called another woman a horse face, and now he is using this terminology for my friend Adam Schiff.

You know, how are we to feel about a president who engages in behavior that we would punish in a 7-year-old boy? What more is there to say, other than, how did we get here and why do we put up with it?

But, look, apart from that, there's nothing in that tweet that is true. Whether that matters today or not is an interesting question. But, of course, a special counsel is not a Senate-confirmable position, and Bob Mueller is not conflicted.

There is zero evidence that Bob Mueller has a conflict. In fact, he is a Republican. He probably is on anybody's top three list of most respected individuals in Washington, with impeccable senses of integrity. So, quite apart from what he called Adam Schiff, here, he is besmirching the reputation, as he always does, of an individual who is a decorated Vietnam War combat hero and floating the notion he somehow was Senate-confirmable.

[18:15:07]

None of that is true. None of that is right. None of that is the kind of behavior we should expect from the guy down the street, much less the president of the United States.

BLITZER: Yes, we know it wasn't a misspelling either, it was deliberate, because that tweet is still posted, it hasn't been corrected, it hasn't been deleted. It is still there for everyone to see, and this is the president who wants decorum in the White House.

Another political issue, I want to get to your thoughts. As you know, 16 of your Democratic colleagues have signed on to a letter against Nancy Pelosi to become speaker of the House. There are others who haven't signed the letter who also say they won't support her.

You haven't made any commitments, I understand, either way. What do you think? Is the momentum there swinging against her, swinging in favor of her? Where do you stand?

HIMES: Well, you know, we're heading into a messy early January, because it would appear from that letter that this group has enough -- enough members to prevent Nancy Pelosi, who will get the majority of the caucus vote to be the speaker, from actually becoming the speaker on the floor.

And as I have urged some people that I know in that group to think about, then what? And, look, there's a whole conversation to be had about whether the Democratic leadership, you know, is changing fast enough. You know, there are obviously younger members who are interested in positions that are not those top three positions. That's a very fair conversation to have.

But I have been encouraging people I know on that letter to ask themselves, you know, then what is the plan? You know, no one has emerged to challenge Nancy Pelosi, which would be the right way to actually set up a leadership race. And do they imagine that if they prevent her, as maybe they can, from becoming speaker, whoever is behind Nancy Pelosi in that instance comes into a unified caucus?

So, anyway, we will see how this all plays out. There's a lot of time between now and the New Year's, when we're taking this vote. But it does seem to me that this is -- I guess the right analogy is, this is a pretty ugly game of chicken that is being set up in a way that could damage something that I think needs to be really -- really supported, which is Democratic unity.

BLITZER: Well, can I take what I just heard from you, Congressman, to assume you will vote in favor of her to be the next speaker?

HIMES: Well, Wolf, the reason I haven't made any commitments at any level whatsoever is, I'm chairman of the New Democrat Coalition, and the New Democrat Coalition is right in the middle of a process right now of talking to all of the candidates for leadership positions to see kind of what their visions are, what they will do and what commitments they will make to support and protect the most vulnerable members of our caucus, ones that perhaps we didn't imagine we would have in places like Kansas, and Oklahoma and South Carolina.

Until we're done with that process, I'm going to respect the integrity of that process and not make any public commitments.

BLITZER: You know this, that the next House speaker will decide if Congressman Adam Schiff should be the House Intelligence Committee chairman. Do you support him for that role?

HIMES: You know, Adam is a good friend and he has been absolutely superb as ranking member.

And, of course, if that's what the Democratic leader decides, I will be more than supportive of Adam Schiff. He has done a spectacular job. And, again, he is a very close friend and I know that he would be terrific in that role.

You know, some day, I would love to be considered for that role as well, but that is a secondary consideration, first of all, around who is the Democratic leader, because, remember, that's one of the few committee chairs that is actually appointed directly by that leader and what that individual may decide to do down the road.

BLITZER: The Democratic Party, as you know, is deeply divided about how aggressively to investigate President Trump over the next two years.

Congressman Maxine Waters, who will chair the House Financial Services Committee, she wants to follow what is called the money trail. You say the American people won't support what you call overtly political investigations. Tell our viewers what you mean by that.

HIMES: Yes, well, let me quarrel with the premise here a little bit, Wolf. The party is not deeply divided by how much we should investigate

Donald Trump. Look, we are all professionals. We all know that we have a constitutional duty to do oversight. We all know and the American people know that this president is just crying out for a congressional check and a balance, so of course we're going to do that.

But, look, as professionals, we also understand that if an investigation is perceived as having no merit and being done just to score partisan or political points against the president, that there is a line there, and that we should be careful about overstepping it.

The other point I would make is that I really believe we need to do two things. One, the Constitution and this president demands oversight and probably some investigation around some things like his hotel, like the Emoluments Clause. I can list others.

[18:20:09]

But, look, at the end of the day, I regard this majority that we have been given as a two-year audition. And at the end of the audition, we better have some evidence of having produced legislation and maybe some results that actually matter to people as they feel the anxiety around the kitchen table, around whether they will be able to retire, whether they have got the money to educate their kids, what their wages may look like five years down the road.

So, again, this is a balance. Of course we're going to do oversight. The Constitution demands it and this president certainly deserves it. But I think we all also realize that we better actually produce the results that make Americans feel like we're paying attention to the anxieties that they feel.

Finding that balance is going to be important for the caucus and certainly for the leaders of our caucus.

BLITZER: It certainly will be.

Congressman Himes, thanks so much for joining us.

HIMES: Thanks very much, Wolf.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source