CNN "CNN Newsroom" - Transcript: Interview with Rep. Jamie Rakin

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

BLITZER: Joining us now, Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland. He serves on the Judiciary Committee.

Congressman, thanks so much for joining us.

What specifically do you want to see that you're not seeing, at least now yet, as a result of this subpoena?

REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): Well, we want to see everything. You know, in the cases of prior independent special counsels, the entire report with all of the underlying evidentiary materials have been turned out. Remember those scenes of Kenneth Starr turning over the report the day after it came out and bringing a truckload of boxes over to Congress. That's exactly what we want here. We need to see it ourselves.

You know, there was one part in the report that jumped out at me where in volume one Mueller writes that there were two cases where Trump campaign officials met directly with agents of the Russian government. One we know about, it was the Trump Tower meeting. The other was completely blacked out and redacted. That's an example of the kind of thing that we want to see.

And the Mueller report underscores the importance of this because Mueller totally kicks the ball over to Congress and says it's up to Congress to decide whether there was obstruction of justice, whether there were high crimes and misdemeanors. That's our constitutional role. We can't run away from it.

TAPPER: So, Speaker Pelosi, speaking several weeks ago, said that Donald Trump is not worth it when it comes to impeachment. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a fellow Marylander like you, said yesterday that, you know, the American people will get their say in a year and a half when the 2020 election.

RASKIN: Yes.

TAPPER: But there are a lot of grassroots Democrats who want you and others in Congress, Democrats, to pursue impeachment. Impeachment is often regarded politically -- forget the checks and balances for a second -- politically as a loser. Do you think your party should pursue impeachment even if it means it damages your party?

RASKIN: The first thing we've got to point out is, what Speaker Pelosi said was that we should not pursue impeachment unless there's overwhelming evidence of a high crime and misdemeanor and there's some bipartisan support. We need to see that the Republicans actually have an open mind about the situation rather than acting like members of a religious cult.

And so far no Republicans seem to be saying, yes, there's serious stuff in there. I see that the president is tweeting out today that all of this is, you know, nonsense again. He's calling it the Russia hoax, when Special Counsel Mueller, whose authority he otherwise bows down to now because he found that there was no criminal conspiracy, but Mueller said that there was a sweeping and systematic campaign by Russia to sabotage our election in 2016. And now they're denying it.

But, you know, look, impeachment is part of the Constitution. We shouldn't be afraid of any part of the Constitution, just like the 25th Amendment is part of the Constitution and we shouldn't be afraid of that.

[09:35:07] And I've said from the beginning, it should not be a fetish for anybody on our side. And I don't think it is. But it doesn't be a taboo, either. We need to follow the evidence where it takes us. And from my perspective, the factual gathering is just beginning right now. Remember, for two years the Republicans in the Judiciary and the Oversight Committee did no investigation. They said, let's wait for the special counsel report. Then they did everything in their power to undermine the special counsel and now they're saying it's all over. They're not even reading the special counsel report.

TAPPER: This report is very clear, there is not evidence, prosecutable evidence, that people on the Trump team conspired with Russia to influence the election, period.

RASKIN: And I wholeheartedly accept that. Do you accept or do others accept the question is that there is overwhelming evidence that the president tried to obstruct justice? I mean 10 different episodes where the president interfered to try to thwart the investigation.

So, you know, and the thing about the collusion is, you know, they said there was no collusion, no collusion. There certainly was no criminal conspiracy according to the special counsel, and I accept that. But, actually, there was clearly a convergence of interest by the Russians who were working to disrupt and sabotage our election and the Trump campaign because the Russian counterintelligence active measure campaign was meant to get Donald Trump elected.

BLITZER: Yes, I was going to say, impeachment in the House is a statement that the House majority would make, even if the chances of the Senate convicting -- you need a two-thirds majority in the Senate -- are remote if -- even if that. But is the House of Representatives, from your perspective, at least prepared to make that kind of statement about the president?

RASKIN: Well, here's the thing. You know, the -- impeachment is a mixed question of law and politics. If it was a question of law only, it would have been reposed in the Article Three branch, it would have been for the courts, but it's been given to Congress, which means we've got to look at not just did the president commit obstruction of justice or violate the emoluments clause or engage in other abuse of power, we have to look at that in the context of everything else we're trying to do.

We just reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act. The Republicans are trying to stop us on that. We passed legislation to close the gun show loophole, and the internet loophole, the Republicans are trying to stop us on that. We're trying to lower prescription drug prices. So we're fighting for an agenda for American on a positive policy front and at the same time we're trying to defend against the most lawless administration of our lifetime. So that's the challenge for us to try to figure out how to be on offense and defense at the same time.

BLITZER: Congressman Raskin, thanks so much for coming in.

RASKIN: Thank you for having me.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source