CNN "The Situation Room" - Transcript: Interview with Rep. Jamie Raskin

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

BLITZER: All right. Pamela thanks very much.

Joining us now, Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland, he's a member of the Judiciary and Oversight committees. Congressman, thank you so much for joining us.

REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD), JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Thanks for having me.

BLITZER: So, as you know, Democrats are going after the grand jury material from the Mueller report. That is obviously still secret. The filing today says in part, and let me read the direct quote, "The Judiciary Committee is investigating whether to recommend articles of impeachment." You also called this probe an impeachment investigation. You said that today. Is that any different at all from a formal impeachment inquiry?

[17:10:03] RASKIN: Well none of those terms, whether it is impeachment inquiry, impeachment probe, impeachment investigation, even articles of impeachment, none of those appear in the Constitution or in federal statute or in the rules of the House of Representatives. So you can define it as you please. Undoubtedly we're collecting overwhelming evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors committed by the president of the United States including the 10 episodes of obstruction of justice that were outlined by Special Counsel Mueller as well as the enthusiastic embrace of Donald Trump and his campaign of foreign interference in our campaign. And that just sets the table for, I think, a broader investigation which could, indeed, lead to impeachment articles being drawn up.

BLITZER: So the current investigation is not necessarily, correct me if I'm wrong, going to lead to a formal roll call of vote in the House Judiciary Committee as far as articles of impeachment. You need another separate investigation before you have that kind of vote?

RASKIN: Well, no. I was just suggesting that there are a lot more things we need to look at. For example, the naked and repeated and continuing violations of the foreign emoluments clause and the domestic emoluments clause. The president has collected millions of dollars from at least 24 different foreign governments, Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, United Arab Emirates, Turkey, and so on through the Trump hotels, through the golf courses, through the Trump office towers. It is in direct violation of the Constitution which says that none of us in federal government can collect presents emoluments, which means payments, offices or titles of any kind, whatever, says the Constitution, without the consent of Congress and the president has never come to Congress.

Now he made a voluntary payment of $350,000 to the U.S. Treasury representing what he described as the profits from foreign governments. But of course the Constitution doesn't ban the collection of profits from foreign governments. It bans the collection of any payments whatsoever. And without coming to Congress and he's never come to us.

So that just sets the table for our investigation into what I think is the heart of the matter which is the president has converted the government of the United States into a money-making operation for himself, for his friends and family and for his business and that is not acceptable and that is something that at least this member really wants to be looking at as we move forward in our investigation of misconduct at the White House.

BLITZER: So let's be very precise because you used these words today, you said, quote, "I think we are in an impeachment investigation." Will this investigation lead to votes on going ahead with articles of impeachment against the president?

RASKIN: Well, I think that remains to be seen. It depends on what is the fruit of the investigation. That is, what do we discover? But I think based on what we've already seen from the Mueller report, there is certainly enough to draw up articles of impeachment relating to obstruction of justice, abuse of power and contempt of Congress. Those happened to be the exact same three articles that were drawn up against Richard Nixon.

BLITZER: What if the courts deny your request for this grand jury material - the secret material? Would that be a significant setback?

RASKIN: Well, you know in prior independent counsel and special counsel investigations Congress has gotten access to all of the underlying grand jury materials and the materials underlying special counsel and independent counsel reports. There is no reason it should be denied to us. One of the reasons it should be given to - given to us is that our fact-finding powers are at they're zenith. Their height when we are considering impeachment as one possible remedy to address presidential misconduct. This is an enumerated power of Congress. It appears four different times in the Constitution and high crimes and misdemeanor against Congress and the people of the United States is a very grave and serious matter.

BLITZER: You're filing today and let me read the words once again, your committee filing says this, quote, "The Judiciary Committee is investigating whether to recommend articles of impeachment." Did you include those words in this filing to this federal judge in order to give you more ammunition in trying to get this grand jury material?

RASKIN: Well, I assume that they're included by the chairman because they're true. This is what we're doing. And it certainly will give us maximum deference and discretion from the court because we are the law-making branch of government. We have not just the power of oversight which is ancillary to our legislative function but we have a very specific power of impeachment because what were the founders of the Constitution afraid of? They were afraid of a president who decided to act like a king and to trample the rule of law and to act as though he were above the law and we just - we can't have it. And that is you know a Constitutional oath that I have sworn to uphold the Constitution. And so, we can't run away from that.

[17:15:08] This president is acting contemptuously towards Congress, the representatives of the people and in defiance of lawful congressional orders for information for documents and for testimony. He's invented a whole now claim of executive privilege. He thinks anyone he's ever come in contact with doesn't have to testify before Congress. It is just an outrageous affront to the powers of Congress. And so, we're not going to allow him to get away with that kind of defiance.

BLITZER: As you know, some of your party are very worried about dragging this into next year. Should Democrats set a deadline, Congressman, for deciding on impeachment?

RASKIN: Well, you know, I agree that we need to move quickly as to potential high crimes and misdemeanors. We want to be very focused in our deliberations. We want to be methodical. We want to be fair. But we want to get at the truth of all of these things. And you know we have excellent presidential candidates out there. And we continue to make progress on the real policy purposes that we arrived here for.

We had a great hearing today in the Oversight Committee about prescription drug prices and we have every confidence to move forward and hopefully the Republicans will join us in moving forward on prescription drug reform. We passed a $15 minimum wage hike to go into effect over the next few years. So we are moving forward even at the same time that we are doing all due diligence with respect to our oversight responsibilities.

BLITZER: Some of your pro-impeachment Democratic colleagues like Ted Lieu, for example, of California who was here in THE SITUATION ROOM with us, say they will go along with whatever the Speaker Nancy Pelosi decides but the Chairman Jerry Nadler isn't ruling out opening an impeachment inquiry without her blessing. How do you see it?

RASKIN: Well, you know, I've thought from the beginning that impeachment - you know the wisdom of the founders reveals itself every single day. They made it a legal question by defining it as high crimes and misdemeanors like treason and bribery and obstruction of justice has been assimilated to that top category through practice of Congress. But it's also a political question in the sense that it is been reposed in Congress rather than in the courts.

So I think that Speaker Pelosi rightfully has her eye on making sure that we're moving our legislative agenda through Congress and trying to work with the obstructionists in the Senate as much as we can. And we hope that they will start taking up our bills for consideration. And she's got her eyes on public opinion. And she often quotes President Lincoln who says public sentiment is everything and it is.

And so this is a dynamic process in which the leadership in Congress are trying to talk about what we've discovered, share it with the people, hear back from our constituents even as we move forward on all of our, you know, different policy fronts.

BLITZER: Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland thanks so much for joining us.

RASKIN: I was delighted to be with you, Wolf. Any time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source