CNN "Anderson Cooper 360" - Transcript: Interview with Rep. James Himes

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

COOPER: Watching the lawyer George Conway has never been shy with his disdain for the President, who also happens to be his wife Kellyanne's boss. Tonight, though, he took it to another level with a Washington Post op-ed. The headline, "Trump is a cancer on the presidency. Congress should remove him."

Here's a sample citing the Mueller report. If we had confidence, and I'm quoting Conway, after a thorough investigation of the facts, the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Mueller did not so state. That's especially damning because the ultimate issue shouldn't be and it isn't whether the President committed a criminal act. Joining me now is Democratic Congressman Jim Himes who sits on the House Intelligence Committee. Congressman Himes, do you believe Special Counsel Mueller in the way that he wrote this report essentially handed the matter of obstruction off to Congress? And if so, what do you think Congress should do about it?

REP. JIM HIMES (D), CONNECTICUT: Yes, I absolutely do. You know, having now read it, I'm sort of stunned by the clarity with which Bob Mueller said hey -- and by the way, this directly is contradicted by what we heard from the attorney general, who, you know, who said that Mueller had not been concerned with the fact that the Department of Justice has this policy against issuing an indictment against the President. There is no question that Mueller was teeing this up, was offering the facts, using the phrase that you just said, we would so state if we believed that he had not committed a crime.

[20:45:07] He has handed this to the Congress I think out of an understanding that the Department of Justice was not going to be the source of accountability for the President.

COOPER: Earlier today, you indicated that the Constitution would demand that impeachment process at least be initiated here. Do you want -- I mean, is that what you want? I mean, if the President potentially committed a crime, I assume, you know, could argue Congress is constitutionally mandated duty is to hold them accountable. But House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer just said I think to our Dana Bash based on what we've seen to date going forward on impeachment is not worth while at this point. Very frankly, there's an election in 18 months and the American people will make a judgment. Is he right?

HIMES: Yes. Anderson, I wish I could give you an answer with intense conviction. This is a really difficult box to be in for the Congress of the United States and certainly for the speaker of the House. You know, on the one hand, yes, Bob Mueller basically teed this up and wink, wink, you know, a crime may have been committed. And we're not going to seek accountability in the Department of Justice.

And so, yes, the Constitution would say you should at least begin the process of studying whether the President committed, you know, enough high crime and misdemeanor to warrant removal. So, you know, the Constitution would suggest that we start that investigative process, that deliberative process.

Here's the problem, Anderson. There is at least in my mind absolutely no question about how that ends, and that ends with the Senate not convicting.

COOPER: Right.

HIMES: So, again, I don't think there is a crime that this President could commit that would cause the Republican Party to turn on him. So I say with great certainty that we would get to a point after a lot of time, energy and resources only to have the Senate turn around and acquit him as happened in the Clinton administration. And then what do we have to show for it? The President can claim to have been a martyr. We will have been distracted from our other oversight tasks and will not have addressed the issues that we all ran on, transportation, education, retirement security, health care.

So, again, I wish I could tell you I know exactly the right answer. But the way impeachment proceedings would end, at least at this point, and remember, there's lots of other investigations out there, there is no question that the Senate would vote to keep, regardless of the fact pattern, to keep the President in office.

COOPER: It was reported today that the House Intelligence Committee's authorized subpoenas for five former White House officials, including white House Counsel Don McGahn. I wonder -- I mean, why call them in if at least at this point impeachment is not on the table. Why what is the point of further investigation? Because to the point of, you know, Democrats are in a tough corner, you know, if they go for impeachment and they can't get it in the Senate, you know, they've wasted time and the President can say he's a martyr, you can make the same argument about continuing investigations that are not going to have an end result in some sort of legal action or congressional action.

HIMES: Yes, I'm not sure I would agree with that for two reasons, Anderson. Number one, I was pretty small at the time, but when President Nixon resigned because he was facing imminent impeachment and almost certainly conviction, you know, right up until that moment it looked like there was no chance he could be impeached. And so new facts obviously historically have influenced the congressional temperament.

Now we live in different times where sadly the Republican Party has given itself wholly over to being a cult of personality for the President. But the other thing is there is a whole school of thought, and I think that Steny Hoyer is a member of this school of thought which is that there's still a political decision for the American people to make. And the more facts they have, the better they'll be in a position to make a decision in November of '20.

COOPER: All right. Congressman Himes, appreciate it. Thank you very much.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source