CNN "Erin Burnett Outfront" - Transcript: Interview with Rep. Jamie Raskin

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

HILL: Phil Mattingly with the latest for us, Phil, thank you.

OUTFRONT now, Democratic congressman from Maryland, Jamie Raskin. He sits on the House Judiciary Committee which would oversee potential impeachment proceedings.

Sir, good to have you with us.

REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D), MARYLAND: Thanks for having me.

HILL: We just heard -- just heard some of the reporting there from Phil. We heard Representative Tlaib say she believes Democrats are moving towards impeachment. Phil talked about the momentum that there was last week.

Where do you think that momentum stands today based on your conversations?

RASKIN: Let me distinguish between impeachment articles and which is an indictment, and impeachment inquiry into whether or not there have been high crimes and misdemeanors against the American republic, and whether we should proceed to articulate the standards and then apply them. I think that there is a lot of momentum towards an impeachment inquiry. And even as people go home over this break, they're hearing more and more from their constituents about it, and every day I think more people are signing onto it.

But I think we should be very clear what they're signing onto. I think that whatever divisions are in the caucus has really been overstated. I think that there's a convergence of view we need everything on the table at this point, including the 25th Amendment, including the impeachment clause, including speech and debate clause, including the emoluments clause.

We have a very unstable fluid situation with this president who is the most reckless and norm-destroying president of our lifetimes. And we need every tool in the constitutional tool kit on the table in order to respond effectively. And I think that the caucus has maintained a lot of cohesion, a lot of sense of focus and purpose about this, as have millions and millions of American people who are really very anxious about what this president has been doing to our democracy.

HILL: When it comes to an impeachment inquiry, which correct me if I'm wrong, you're in favor of, yes?

RASKIN: Well, I want it to be on the table, and I think, look, those of us who are in the Judiciary Committee have seen up front, close and personal, tremendous evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors and presidential obstruction of justice both through the Mueller report but also through all of the misconduct of the administration since then when the president made history in a completely unprecedented way by saying -- by ordering people in the executive branch not to cooperate with Congress, to violate subpoenas, to not turn over evidence.

What we're seeing is contempt of Congress being imposed in a systematic and wholesale way by the administration.

HILL: So, when it comes to this impeachment inquiry, right, and you see, you want to have all the options on the table, we know that Speaker Pelosi is not there, and she's saying and I quote, she's not sure you would get any information with that. What do you think specifically think this impeachment inquiry could bring you in terms of information, and what do you think it would take to convince Speaker Pelosi that that was the right path?

RASKIN: Well, first of all, Speaker Pelosi said this past week what

we're seeing is a presidential cover-up and that is an impeachment offense. So, I don't know how much distance there is between her and people who are moving on this. But, look, the information that we're getting --

HILL: So, are we misunderstanding what she's saying? Because she's still come out pretty clearly saying she's not there yet. This is not what we need to focus on, right?

RASKIN: I think she's correctly pointing out as the leader of the U.S. House of Representatives that impeachment is, always has been and remains a remedy you only use under extraordinary circumstances. And if it's going to be divisive or polarizing, it should be disfavored. If it's going to be unifying people behind the Constitution and behind the rule of law, then the calculus shifts there.

But the point about information is really important. What we're winning on is our Article I power under the Constitution to collect evidence, to engage in fact-finding. So we're winning on the accountants, the Mazars case in the Oversight Committee. We're winning on the Deutsche Bank in financial services and so.

But all of that is just evidence that we're collecting, it's evidence that pushes us more towards an impeachment inquiry because it's revealing more and more high crimes and misdemeanors. Winning evidentiary skirmishes on their own is not a goal unto itself. All of it is instrumental to get the goods that we need in order to understand the criminality and the lawlessness of the administration.

HILL: I do want to quickly get your take on something else. In terms of Attorney General Bill Barr's investigation into the origins of the Russia probe, Sarah Sanders was asked about specifically this weekend whether the president would accept that outcome. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: We already know there was an outrageous amount of corruption that took place at the FBI.

[19:35:04] CHUCK TODD, MODERATOR, "MEET THE PRESS": So the president is not going to accept exoneration if that's what Bill Barr finds?

SANDERS: Look, I'm not going to get ahead of what the final conclusion is, but we already know that there was a high level of corruption that was taking place.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: So, she was asked if she would accept the conclusion everything was done legally. Do you think the American -- well, quick two-part question. Do you think, A, the American people will know? And B, will you be able to tell whether what was given by Attorney General Barr is, in fact, an honest finding or whether it's the outcome that the president wants and apparently has already decided on?

RASKIN: Well, both President Trump and Attorney General Barr had already pronounced that there was spying that took place and it was an illegitimate and it was a deep state conspiracy and it was a witch hunt and it was angry Democrats and all this nonsense. I mean, it's an absolute paranoid conspiracy theory that the president has sold the attorney general on, and the attorney general shamefully, in a disgraceful show of sycophancy to the president has agreed to go along with it and say he's going to investigate the investigators.

And everything that we saw about that over the last two years, because remember this was the theory that Republicans were proceeding on in the judiciary committee inquiries into Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, is that all of these are complete nonsense, all they had against Strzok and Page was that they had called the president a moron or an idiot. And we can find you lots of comments by Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio where they said he's a compulsive liar and he's a serial philanderer and unqualified for office.

You know, wait until we bring up everything all the Republicans said about him which are just exactly what these FBI agents, likely half of America or more have said.

HILL: Congressman Jamie Raskin, appreciate your time tonight. Thank you.

RASKIN: Delighted to be with you. Thank you, Erica.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source