CNN "CNN Newsroom" - Transcript: Interview with Rep. Jamie Raskin
Interview
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, and it's grown more than $2 trillion under this president, largely because of those tax cuts.
All right, so this morning House Democrats are turning their focus to the Special Counsel Bob Mueller's upcoming testimony next week after yesterday's failed impeachment bid.
With me now is Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland. He serves on the Judiciary and Oversight Committee.
Good morning, sir. Always good to have you.
REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): Thanks so much for having me.
HARLOW: Let's get to that in a moment, the special counsel and impeach. But I just want to begin with your take on what we heard last night from that crowd that chanted the refrain, "send them back" about four sitting members of Congress.
RASKIN: Well, the president has dragged down not just discourse in the White House, but discourse in the country. This is a -- you know, this is right out of a dictator's playbook essentially to pick a scapegoat and then just to hammer the scapegoat over and over again.
But the Democrats are completely unified this week. We're fighting on increase in the minimum wage to $15. That has enormous popularity across the country. America deserves a wage and so we're focused on trying to improve economic and social conditions for the people.
HARLOW: And Congressman Hakeem Jeffries was on earlier on "NEW DAY" talking about that legislation.
Before we do move on to some of the things on your plate on these committees, "The New York Times" op-ed columnist Tom Friedman writes this this morning, dear Democrats, this is not complicated. Just nominate a decent, sane person committed to reunifying the country, creating more good jobs, a person who can gain the support of independents, moderate Republicans, suburban women. Please spare me the revolution. It can wait. Win the presidency, hold the House, narrow the spread in the Senate and a lot of good things can become accomplished.
RASKIN: Yes.
HARLOW: What do you -- what's your message back to him? And are you at all --
RASKIN: You know, I don't --
HARLOW: Are you at all concerned that the president has been somewhat successful in painting a picture of a Democratic Party that is socialist and so far left that it can't win in 2020?
RASKIN: Well, but I like his points. You know, we're progressives because the heart of that word is progress. But we are conservatives at this point because we want to conservative the land and the air and the water and the climate and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, everything that Donald Trump and his gang of nihilists wants to tear down. He's everything that we're defending. And all we need to do is to run as conservatives who want to conserve what is best in America against these people who would destroy everything at this point.
HARLOW: OK, let's move on to all that is on your plate on the judiciary of course next week with the questioning of the special council on Wednesday.
The move to impeach the president put forward by Al Green, Representative Al Green yesterday failed. You voted with 94 Democrats for it essentially not to table it and 137 of your fellow Democrats voted against that. What do you think that should tell the American people right now about where the Democratic Party actually stands on this because that -- it's just quite a divide?
RASKIN: Well, it's actually not much of a divide at all. I mean those of us who voted not to table, we're essentially saying, we have a process in place in the Judiciary Committee, in all impeachment resolutions, and there could be more because the president commits impeachable acts all the time, but they should --
HARLOW: Yes, but the chairman of your committee, Jerry Nadler, voted against it, opposite of you, because he thought it should have gone through the process to go to the judiciary first.
RASKIN: But I agree with that. I think that all impeachment resolutions and censure resolutions and so on should go to the Judiciary Committee. That's the proper process.
Youi know, we've -- we've got a committee process to use people's expertise -- HARLOW: But you voted not to do that. You voted not to table it. I
guess the central question I'm trying to get at is, is --
RASKIN: Yes, but by voting not to table --
HARLOW: Is the -- is the cost as divided on this as it appears?
RASKIN: Well, let me just explain the parliamentary route here.
HARLOW: Sure.
RASKIN: By voting not to table we were saying it should not be frozen on the floor, it should be sent to committee.
HARLOW: OK.
RASKIN: So by not tabling it, we would have referred it to committee. So that's what, you know, I think that most, if not all of the members of the -- on the majority side of judiciary voted not to table because we wanted it to come there.
You know, there -- I was not very impressed by that resolution because it didn't even enumerate high crimes and misdemeanors. It was an expression of righteous frustration at the president's outrageous remarks. But it really did not look much like an impeachment resolution. It did not talk about abuse of power, about obstruction of justice. It did not talk about contempt of Congress. It did not talk about violations of the emoluments clause. So it was not a remotely comprehensive catalog of the potential offenses committed by this president.
HARLOW: I know that you would like to see an impeachment inquiry opened. You've said that for a long time now on our air and elsewhere. If the special counsel, if Bob Mueller doesn't say anything in his testimony next week outside of what is included in volume one and volume two of his report, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer and the leadership of your party don't move from their current position on moving on impeachment, is it useful for the party to move forward on impeachment?
[09:35:06] RASKIN: Well, we've got to move forward on investigations. And everybody in the party is clear about that. We are dealing with a completely lawless and reckless administration. And we have all sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against enemies, foreign and domestic. And this is our job on the Oversight Committee and on the Judiciary Committee.
So it is true that Attorney General Barr's derailment of this whole process has been pretty effective. And he essentially lied about the contents of the Mueller report. Then he delayed the release of the Mueller report for three and a half weeks and then it came out substantially redacted, which prompted two letters of protest from Special Counsel Mueller saying that the attorney general was confusing the American people.
And that essentially has been the design of this whole propaganda offensive by the administration. The president and attorney general have been repeating this idiotic mantra of no obstruction, no collusion when, in fact, there's overwhelming evidence of obstruction in there.
HARLOW: You have -- sir -- sir, very quickly, before we go, you bring up Barr. You guys voted this week yesterday to hold him and Wilbur Ross in contempt of Congress. You have, as a constitutional law professor, previously cited 1821 Supreme Court decision that gives you the authority to have the sergeant in arms arrest those held in contempt. At this point, for Barr, is that what you suggest?
RASKIN: Well, no, right now what we're seeking is a criminal contempt finding against the attorney general that would be taken to federal court.
HARLOW: OK.
RASKIN: We know that Attorney General Barr and the administration tried madly yesterday to stop this from happening because it's a terrible stigma and dishonor for his career that he acted in such blatant defiance and contempt of the American people.
HARLOW: OK.
RASKIN: And he did --
HARLOW: The challenge -- as you know, the challenge for you guys on that one is going to be getting a U.S. attorney to take action against their own head of their own Justice Department.
We are out of time. Come back, congressman, especially next week, because it's a big one. Thanks very much.
RASKIN: It's a deal. I would love to.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source