MSNBC "Hardball" - Transcript: Interview with Rep. Jamie Raskin

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

MATTHEWS:  Welcome back to HARDBALL.  The Trump administration is, once again, telling congressional democrats to buzz off.  Late tonight, Secretary Mnuchin, the Secretary of the Treasury, refused to turn over President
Trump`s tax returns to the Chairman of the Tax Writing Ways and Means Committee, stating that the request lacks a legitimate legislative purpose.  That`s what he says.
 
In doing so, the administration is ignoring a law that says the Treasury Secretary, that would be Mnuchin, shall furnish.  Those are the words, shall furnish, in the law that returns of any taxpayer to a limited number of legislative leaders, like the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.  This comes just hours after Attorney General William Barr failed to comply with the House Judiciary Committee`s request for an unredacted version of -
* of special counsel Robert Mueller`s report. 
 
In a statement, Chairman Jerry Nadler writes that Barr`s failure to comply with the committee forced them to initiate a contempt proceeding.  The committee scheduled a markup of the 27-page contempt resolution for this Wednesday.
 
So the committee is going to vote on Wednesday on contempt, where it would have to move to the House full for a full vote on contempt. 
 
The resolution argues that the special counsel left it up to Congress to answer the question of obstruction and that -- quote -- "access to these materials is essential to the committee`s ability to effectively investigate possible misconduct of the president and consider appropriate legislative oversight or other constitutionally warranted responses like impeachment."
 
The resolution also notes that: "Access to the unredacted report would help the committee take further steps that includes whether to approve articles of impeachment for the president or other officials."
 
A spokesperson for the Department of Justice was critical of the resolution, but invited committee staff to the department to discuss mutually acceptable accommodation. 
 
For more, I`m joined by U.S. Congressman Jamie Raskin, Democrat from Maryland and a member of the House Judiciary Committee. 
 
Congressman, I just wonder -- and I`m not being difficult here, but I do have a problem of my skepticism.  I look at Jerry Nadler, the chairman of your committee.  I look at Elijah Cummings, chairman of Oversight.  You`re on both of those committees. 
 
They are serious, serious legislators.  They are for real.  They`re not just partisan hacks.  They`re for real.  And yet this administration laughs at them.  They just say, we`re going to give you a deadline of we`re going to think about it until May 6, which is today.  That`s what Mnuchin said, like it`s his job. 
 
And they just say, we`re not going to give you anything, witnesses or documents.  What do you do in the end to make them do it? 
 
REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD):  Well, we`re going to vote on a contempt resolution Wednesday morning. 
 
And I expect a unanimous vote among all the Democrats.  Hoping that some Republicans will see the logic of it, especially they voted as part of a unanimous 420-0 vote on the House floor to have the report turned over to us. 
 
But, in any event, our contempt resolution will go to the floor of the House.  And I expect at least all of the Democrats and maybe some of the Republicans to join us.  And we`re going to hold this attorney general in contempt of court -- in contempt of Congress, rather.  And then…
 
MATTHEWS:  But doesn`t the Justice Department have to roll here?  Don`t they have to bring charges on contempt? 
 
RASKIN:  Well, right. 
 
We`re going to send it to the U.S. attorney, and they can bring criminal charges.  But we also can go to U.S. district court to ask for a civil contempt and to try to press it like that and to ask for a much -- a much more rapid resolution of it. 
 
We also have, Chris, powers of inherent contempt, which go back to the early 19th century. 
 
MATTHEWS:  Yes. 
 
RASKIN:  In fact, inherent contempt predates criminal or civil contempt. 
 
And that was simply Congress just saying, you are disobeying a lawful order of Congress.  You`re defying our authority, and we`re going to hold you.  We`d send the sergeant of arms to go back to go get people back in the 19th century. 
 
MATTHEWS:  Well, where would the sergeant of arms go?  This is beginning to sound like Venezuela. 
 
Where does the sergeant of arms go?  He goes to the gates of the Treasury Department and he asks if he can come in to arrest the secretary of treasury or ask if he can name -- go to the Justice Department to ask for permission to get past the guards to arrest the attorney general?
 
I don`t see it happening.  I know you`re a constitutional expert, but how does it actually work? 
 
RASKIN:  Well, the way it worked in the 19th century is that people who were acting in defiance of lawful orders by Congress were held until they essentially extinguished the contempt by complying with the order. 
 
Now, obviously, this hasn`t been done in, I think , more than seven or eight decades, so it`s taken a long time to get to this point of official executive contempt. 
 
But what we have got is an executive branch which is categorically defying the lawful orders of Congress.  They`re doing it with the president`s…
 
(CROSSTALK)
 
MATTHEWS:  What happens?  But, in the end, Congressman, what happens?
 
In the end, it sounds like they`re going to test your ability to make them turn over the tax returns.  Trump`s not going to let any of his people turn it over.  So he will have to make the decision.  Do you think he`s going to turn over the right to get access to his tax returns, that he, Donald Trump, will agree to that
 
RASKIN:  Well, he has said under no circumstances would he turn over his tax returns, which makes us all the more determined to get them. 
 
He`s the first president of the last seven or eight who has not turned over his tax returns. 
 
MATTHEWS:  Yes. 
 
RASKIN:  And we want to know precisely what he`s hiding in terms of foreign entanglements, in terms of emoluments…
 
MATTHEWS:  I`m with you.
 
RASKIN:  … payoffs from foreign princes and kings and governments, in violation of the U.S. Constitution. 
 
MATTHEWS:  I would like to file the German bank name he`s going after.  I would like to know a whole lot of what he`s up to. 
 
Thank you so much, U.S. Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland. 
 
RASKIN:  Thanks, Chris. 
 
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source