MSNBC "Hardball" - Transcript: Interview with Reps. Hakeem Jeffries and Mike Quigley

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

MATTHEWS:  Welcome back to HARDBALL. 
 
They did just show up. 
 
Anyway, President Trump and his allies continue to call the special counsel`s report a complete and total exoneration of the crimes of conspiracy and obstruction of justice, a decision they say is grounded in the rule of law. 
 
For the record, the report explicitly, explicitly does not exonerate the president, and says so.  It does not exonerate.  That`s what Mueller said. 
 
However, since we have only seen Attorney General William Barr`s summary, and not the report itself, a number of questions are out there.  Namely, what`s in the Mueller report?  We haven`t seen it.  And did the attorney general overstep when he cleared the president of obstruction?  In two days, he covered what was judged -- was looked at for two years. 
 
And moments ago, six Democratic committee chairs submitted this letter -- you`re looking at it -- to the attorney general, William Barr, requesting he submit the full Mueller report and the underlying evidence to Congress by next Tuesday, April 2. 
 
In the joint letter, they go on to say: "Your four-page summary of the special counsel`s review is not sufficient for Congress, as a co-equal branch of government, to perform its oversight function."
 
For more, I`m joined by U.S. Congressman Hakeem Jeffries, Democrat from New York and a member of the House Judiciary Committee, and Congressman Mike Quigley, Democrat from Illinois, a member of the House Intelligence Committee.
 
I want to start with Congressman Jeffries. 
 
First of all, how do we know whether the president obstructed justice on all these matters, especially around the Russian probe, and who says so?  Are we to take the word of Attorney General Barr, appointed by the president, that the president innocent and exonerated?  Because, apparently, that`s his word. 
 
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D), NEW YORK:  Well, we absolutely should not take the word of Attorney General Barr. 
 
What we have seen to date is the Barr report, four-page report from someone who was appointed by Donald Trump, perhaps because, as Donald Trump indicated, he wanted his Roy Cohn.  He wanted his attorney general who would have the president`s back.
 
That`s not the job of the attorney general.  But, apparently, that`s what Donald Trump believes is the highest qualification to hold that position. 
 
Instead of the Barr report, we need to see the Mueller report, every single word.  The House voted 420-0 for full and public disclosure of the work that Bob Mueller has undertaken.  And that is why we all stand behind our six committee chairs to make sure that we can get access to this information, so that it`s presented to the American people. 
 
MATTHEWS:  How do you win that fight? 
 
Is this going to go to the Supremes?  And that`s, of course, a Republican court.  Are you going to -- if you take this to the Supreme Court, and you say, we`re going to subpoena the president, who is going to ignore the subpoena, it goes all the way to the top court, can you win that fight with a Republican court? 
 
JEFFRIES:  I think we can. 
 
But, hopefully, it doesn`t have to get to the court.  We are a separate and co-equal branch of government.  We don`t work for Donald Trump.  We work for the American people.  We have a constitutional responsibility, as you know, Chris, to serve as a check and balance on an out-of-control executive branch. 
 
That`s not the House Democratic Caucus playbook.  That`s the James Madison playbook.  And so we are well within our rights, on behalf of the American people, to subpoena the attorney general, if necessary, subpoena the report, if necessary, on behalf of the American people.
 
MATTHEWS:  Congressman Quigley, the report from Robert Mueller, as quoted by Mr. Barr, the attorney general, says that the president was not exonerated from obstruction of justice. 
 
Then, having quoted the Mueller report, the attorney general said, but I`m going to exonerate him. 
 
What do you make of that sequence of events?  It`s extraordinary. 
 
REP. MIKE QUIGLEY (D), ILLINOIS:  Look, Mr. Barr did the job he was assigned to do.  It is the singular purpose for him being exactly where he is. 
 
He argued against the theory of law that Mueller was theoretically using to deal with an obstruction case before he got there.  He never should have been approved by the Senate.  But here he is, and we have to face the consequences. 
 
And I think, not just Mr. Barr, but Mr. Mueller has to appear before Congress to get into the details, not just of the report, but of the underlying documentation they used to make their arguments. 
 
MATTHEWS:  Well, two weeks ago, gentlemen, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told "The Washington Post" these amazing words: "I`m not for impeachment.  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."
 
She`s talking about the president. 
 
In the wake of the special counsel investigation, a Democratic aide tells Politico: "You can hurt Trump more without impeaching him.  If you`re going to go after him, it has to be a kill shot.  But, otherwise, you can keep cutting him over and over again, and then beat him in 2020."
 
What`s your thinking about that?
 
First, with Congressman Jeffries, do you think impeachment should be on the table after this weekend? 
 
JEFFRIES:  Well, for most of us, impeachment was never on the table.  And I think Nancy Pelosi, our speaker, was making two important points. 
 
The first point is that we didn`t run on impeachment.  We didn`t win on impeachment.  We`re not focused on impeachment.  We`re focused on executing our for-the-people agenda, lowering health care costs for everyday Americans, enacting a real infrastructure plan, and cleaning up corruption and the mess in Washington, D.C., which we have begun to do with passage of HR-1. 
 
That was our first point.  Our second point was that, if we were to even consider going down the impeachment road, the case must be compelling, the evidence must be overwhelming, and the public sentiment around impeachment must be bipartisan in nature.
 
In the absence of any of those three elements, I completely and totally agree, and so do the overwhelming majority of House Democratic Caucus members, that impeachment is not the route that we need to go. 
 
MATTHEWS:  Congressman Quigley, I wonder.  I listen to what Mr. Jeffries says.  And I respect him, of course, and I respect you.
 
But how come everybody that stops me at an airport or anywhere I walk, are we going to get rid of this guy? 
 
So, somehow that people got the idea that the Democrats were going to impeach Trump.  Where did they get that idea?  The Democrats are the only one that could impeach him.  And everybody says to me, when are we going to get rid of this guy?
 
That`s their phrase. 
 
QUIGLEY:  Well, look…
 
MATTHEWS:  Where did that come from? 
 
QUIGLEY:  Well, I think a couple of our colleagues filed articles of impeachment some time ago. 
 
The fact is, I would not rule out impeachment.  I just said, we shouldn`t be focused on it, but let the Mueller investigation take its course.  Let`s find out what`s in the Mueller investigation report and the underlying documentation. 
 
And, remember, there are 12 ongoing criminal investigations that are taking place.  There`s a lot more information out there, including the House investigation, still dealing with counterintelligence, which is one of the reasons that report and the documentation is so important. 
 
Was the president compromised?  How does that look before the American public and, of course, the U.S. Senate?
 
MATTHEWS:  Thank you.  Gentlemen, it`s so great to have you on tonight.  And thank you for coming on, on this important night, Hakeem Jeffries of New York and Mike Quigley of Illinois.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source