CNN "The Situation Room" - Transcript: Interview with Rep. Ted Lieu

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

BLITZER: Certainly is, the U.S. and Sweden clearly at odds.

Pamela Brown at the White House, thanks very much.

Let's get some more on all of this.

Democratic Congressman Ted Lieu of California is joining us. He's a member of the Intelligence Committee.

Congressman, thanks so much for joining us.

REP. TED LIEU (D-CA): Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: We got a lot to discuss.

But let me start with this new Senate Intelligence Committee report. If Russia used 2016 to grow its capabilities and learn more about American election infrastructure, what are they capable of doing in 2020? [18:30:07]

LIEU: Thank you, Wolf, for that question. What the Judiciary and Intel Committees showed yesterday with Special Counsel Robert Mueller is that both democrats and republicans agreed that the Russians systemically, in a sweeping manner, attacked our elections in 2016 and they're going to do so again.

The House of Representatives has passed two bills to the U.S. Senate to prevent that election tampering and hacking from happening. Unfortunately, Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans are not taking the bills up.

BLITZER: But you say that democrats and republicans agree on Russia's 2016 election interference. If that's the case, why haven't we seen any major election security bills in the Senate, for example? They seem to die pretty quickly.

LIEU: So the House of Representatives has passed those bills. I don't know what's going on through Mitch McConnell's mind. But, clearly, he is not taking these bills up for a vote. If they were taken up for a vote, they would pass. I don't know why he doesn't want to strengthen our election security.

One of the bills mandates that these machines be made in the United States. Now, who could be against that? So it's not clear to me why the Senate Republicans are blocking these bills.

BLITZER: It's a serious problem. You were at the center yesterday of one of the most dramatic moments of the hearings with Robert Mueller. You have to walk back this testimony to you in response to your questioning that the reason that they didn't formally indict the President was because of the Justice Department guidelines, a sitting president can't be indicted.

But you say Mueller fully understood your question. Doesn't Mueller's correction, which he later provided, prove otherwise?

LIEU: This is what's so odd about that exchange. Special Counsel Robert Mueller agreed that the OLC opinion prevented a sitting president from being indicted. And then the republican member after me asked him a series of questions to try to get him to walk it back, and he did not do that. And then it wasn't until there was a recess in the Intel Committee that he started walk some of that back. I don't know who got to him. I don't know who talked to him, but that was very odd what he did.

BLITZER: Well, what are you suggesting? Because he said he misspoke, he didn't understand or whatever it was. That's why he wanted to clarify and walk back his response to your question. Are you saying he only did that because of pressure from someone?

LIEU: I don't know. But he clearly answered the way he answered to me, and then he had numerous times to walk that back by the next republican member who asked a series of questions on exact same issue trying to get him to walk it back. So I don't really understand what happened.

But we all agree and even Robert Mueller would agree that there is an OLC, Department of Justice opinion that says the sitting President of the United States cannot be indicted.

BLITZER: Yes. That's what he repeatedly said that. He was working under those guidelines.

Mueller declined to even read from his report in response to a lot of questioning from the democrats. His answers were short, sometimes stilted. Do you think he did a disservice to his report during those hours of testimony yesterday?

LIEU: I would have liked if Special Counsel Robert Mueller was more talkative, but he did say yes and true to a large number of devastating facts. He also admitted in my questioning to the first two elements of obstruction of justice that were satisfied and then on the third element, intent, I simply read from his report, and it said, quote, substantial evidence, unquote, of evidence for intent.

So, basically, it's as if Robert Mueller says, look, here is a piece of bread. I'm putting a piece of ham on that bread. Then I'm going to put another piece of bread on the ham, and we say that's a ham sandwich. And he goes, no, I'm not going to call it that. Well, it's a ham sandwich.

So that's essentially what he did. He laid out the evidence and it meets the elements of obstruction of justice.

BLITZER: The House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, says it's still not time to open impeachment proceedings in the House. Is this debate more about a lack of political will than a lack of evidence?

LIEU: Speaker Pelosi is an amazing speaker. I'm honored to be on her leadership team. She's going to make this decision and consultation with the democratic caucus. And whatever decision she makes, I'm going to respect.

BLITZER: How unlikely is it that your committee, the Judiciary Committee, would launch a formal impeachment inquiry on its own without a full House vote?

LIEU: We're not going to go rogue, Wolf. Everything that the Judiciary Committee does will have the blessing of Speaker Pelosi.

I'm going to tell you what's going to come next. We're going to file litigation to get the grand jury materials that we have not yet been able to see. We're going to file litigation to compel Don McGahn to come and testify publicly before the Judiciary Committee, and we've asked Hope Hicks to come back and testify because she lied to us the first time that she testified.

[18:35:06]

BLITZER: Lots going on, and we'll see if you succeed in that effort. Congressman Ted lieu, thank you for joining us. LIEU: Thank you, Wolf.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source