CNN "The Situation Room" - Transcript: Interview with Rep. Garamendi

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

BLITZER: All right, Sara, thank you, Sara Murray reporting.

Let's talk about this and more with Democratic Congressman John Garamendi of California. He's a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Congressman, thanks for coming in.

REP. JOHN GARAMENDI (D), CALIFORNIA: Good to be with you, Wolf.

BLITZER: You agree with Nancy Pelosi? She says she's not for impeachment at this time. She says it's just not worth it.

Are you willing to definitively rule out beginning impeachment proceedings in the House at least now?

GARAMENDI: At this moment, we don't need an impeachment at this moment, but there's things out there. The Mueller report's not in. We got three committees doing investigations.

As that work develops, it may very well be that we must impeach. We don't know right now.

BLITZER: Because there's a lot of anticipation that the Mueller report may wind up actually disappointing you.

GARAMENDI: We don't know, do we? We don't know what's going to come of that report. We do know that there are major questions. There's a lot of smoke around this presidency. And what does it all mean? We're going to find out over the next couple of months.

Will that warrant an impeachment? Could very well be. The president's been accused of criminal behavior. Is that impeachable? If it's proven, certainly, it would be.

BLITZER: So you think Nancy Pelosi, your speaker, she spoke prematurely?

GARAMENDI: No. The operative word was at this moment.

BLITZER: She said: "I'm not for impeachment. This is news. I'm going to give you some news right now because I haven't said this to any press person before, but since you have asked and I have been thinking about this, impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path because it divides the country and he's just not worth it."

GARAMENDI: Well, I think we have an obligation to the Constitution to hold the president accountable for misdemeanors, for high crimes.

If there is a serious breach of the law, and it's provable, then that would warrant an impeachment. We're not there at this moment.

BLITZER: But you would do the impeachment proceeding in the House even if you didn't think it would get the two-thirds majority in the Senate needed for conviction in order to remove Donald Trump from office?

GARAMENDI: Yes, I would.

BLITZER: You would just be satisfied impeaching him in the House, letting him continue to serve out his term, as Bill Clinton did? He was impeached in the House, but he wasn't convicted in the Senate.

GARAMENDI: That's correct, but you have to take a look at, what are the charges? What are we talking about here? Are we talking about serious criminal offense? We will see what happens.

Votes do change as information comes in, as there's new data, new evidence. Maybe the votes are there. We don't know the underlying issues right now. We know there have been very serious allegations. Are they provable? We're going to find out. The hearings are under way. Mueller's report is out there.

We're going to find out what's going to take place here. And if it's all there, then maybe the votes are in the Senate, as well as in the House.

BLITZER: In her White House briefing today, Sarah Sanders, she refused to provide details on what the president alleges, that he got a specific direct request for a pardon from his former lawyer Michael Cohen.

GARAMENDI: I have no idea what that's all about. We're going to see. Maybe he did. Maybe it was the president's lawyers that reached out to Cohen's lawyers. We don't know yet.

BLITZER: She also refused to discuss this report, you saw the report in Axios, quoting the president in a private fund-raiser for Republicans over the weekend in Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, when the president reportedly said, the Democrats hate Jewish people.

What's your reaction to that?

GARAMENDI: What is there to say about this president? He has more than 10,000 lies racked up already. He just speaks without thinking. Or maybe he is thinking and what comes out is unthinkable.

The Democrats, the Republicans, we have no problem, either party, with our Jewish friends and our Jewish supporters. We are open to all people in this country and we clearly, as Democrats, have good relationships with Jews. We have good relationships. [18:15:01]

We hate anti-Semitism, just -- and we have seen too much of that. And we have also seen a president that has equated white supremacists with those people that are standing up for civil rights and against that. So tell me where this president is coming from.

His statements just are outrageous. They're unconscionable. And they just continue to add up one after another.

BLITZER: Sarah Sanders at the briefing today, and it was the first briefing in more than 40 days by the press secretary, she refused to rule out potentially a pardon for the former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. What message does that send?

GARAMENDI: Well, you just raised the question earlier about Michael Cohen, was he searching for a pardon?

Well, here, we have a situation where the White House press secretary is actually saying that a pardon may very well be in the offing for a fellow that has been accused and found guilty of tax evasion and other crimes, as well as lying.

So you take -- just step back for a second and consider what this president has done to this nation. There is no truth in the White House, and pardons are being tossed around. What effect did that have on what may have come about with the underlying information that Mueller was seeking from this man? We don't know.

Was there a message? There certainly could have been a coded message sent very, very clearly, and now we're getting a very clear signal from Sarah Huckabee Sanders that a pardon is in the offing.

BLITZER: Well, she said -- she didn't say it's in the offing. She said potentially it's not being ruled out.

GARAMENDI: It's in the offing.

BLITZER: That's your conclusion.

GARAMENDI: That's my view.

BLITZER: That's your interpretation.

Let's quickly talk about the president's new proposed budget that was submitted to Congress today. He's asking specifically for $8.6 billion for wall funding. How much are you willing, as a Democrat in the House, how much do you think you're willing to give him for wall funding?

GARAMENDI: About the same amount Mexico is willing to pay for it. Mexico going to pay for the wall? No. The American taxpayers are going to pay for the wall.

And what's that money going to come from? It's going to come from education. We're looking at a $1.5 trillion reduction in care for people around this nation that need health care. That's the Medicaid program.

That's in this president's budget. You're looking at a reduction for education. You're looking at a reduction for homeless and housing programs all across this nation. Why? So the president can have his $8 billion for a budget -- for a border wall? I don't think so.

BLITZER: Those are reductions in the rate of growth, not necessarily flat reductions.

GARAMENDI: No, there are...

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: In Medicaid?

GARAMENDI: That's over a 10-year period.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Yes, 10 years, but Medicaid will keep going up, but not at the extent that you would like.

GARAMENDI: There is, overall, over the next 10 years, yes, there will be inflation in health care. No doubt about it. There will be more seniors that will be seeking nursing home care.

Those are increases, but this president is determined to reduce that projected money necessary to care for seniors and other people in this nation by over $1.5 trillion. It's just unconscionable. And, by the way, we ought to give the president the same amount of money that Mexico is giving for the border wall, zero, nada, nothing.

BLITZER: John Garamendi, thanks for coming in.

GARAMENDI: Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source