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

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN HOST: OK. I mean, if they don't know when it's happening, why set a date for possibly next week. I'm confused by it all, Phil. OK. Keep us updated. Thank you so much.

OUTFRONT with me now, Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, one of the committees where Mueller is set to be testifying.

Congressman, thanks for being here. REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): Thank you, Kate, for having me.

BOLDUAN: First off, what are you hearing? Are you hearing that Mueller is coming this coming Wednesday? Next Wednesday? Not at all? What are you hearing?

RASKIN: Well, I have to start by telling you that I was in the oversight hearings all day about the border and inhumane treatment of children and families in the detention centers. So, I missed a lot of whatever was happening today. But I know that there are, you know, high-level secret negotiations going on about exactly when the special counsel is going to come and what the terms are.

Our main determination has been to give him as much time as possible to articulate the basic findings and conclusions of the report which have been so badly misstated and distorted by Attorney General Barr and President Trump with their ludicrous mantra of no obstruction, no collusion when the report is filled with evidence contradicting both of those claims.

BOLDUAN: Congressman, are you entirely confident that Mueller is still going to be testifying?

RASKIN: Yes. I believe that's a historical necessity. When people get into all of the inside machinations of all the different parties I try to think of it from the outside. I think historically he has to come and speak. I wish he had done it the day after the report was delivered.

But Barr had a game to play. Remember, he withheld it three and a half weeks before Easter and Passover. And, you know, here we are.

BOLDUAN: Well, let me ask you this, because you are one of the members who -- this is goes by seniority and how the question goes in this hearings. You are one of the members who could be boxed out if the hearing moves ahead as is with the time constraints.

RASKIN: Yes.

BOLDUAN: But answer me this, you as a committee, you finally get Mueller to agree to testify after he originally said he didn't want to and he originally was pushing back very clearly. Nadler clearly had to agree to this to get Mueller there, because it is unusual, this kind of a time limit.

Are you concerned that you are risking all of that getting Mueller to speak publicly just so more members can ask questions?

RASKIN: Well, you know it was the Republicans who are making a big deal out of that. I don't know if you saw the hearing yesterday. But they were all railing about how they wanted to have their five minutes and so on. Of course, that is the norm around here. And it's a rule in the House of Representatives.

But I don't think it's fundamentally about that. I think it's a question of whether there is going to be sufficient time for the whole committee to question the special counsel and for him to have an opportunity to speak to the American people. I mean, we need him to articulate some important things.

BOLDUAN: If it comes down to it, Congressman, is Mueller testifying for two hours publicly better than Mueller not testifying for no hours publicly.

RASKIN: Well, of course, it is. There is no doubt about that. But, look, the special counsel has said he wants to stand on the four corners of the report. So, he wants to be a little bit like, you know, Shakespeare and Macbeth. He wants the work to speak for itself but his role as a special counsel is more complicated than that. For example, he wrote the letter protesting Attorney General Barr's misstatements about the contents of the report. And he said that basically the attorney general was confusing the American public about it.

You know, I would like him to expound upon that. We would like him to also expound upon what he talked about in the press conference, which was the reason the president wasn't indicted wasn't because of a lack of evidence. It was because of the Department of Justice policy that you don't diet a sitting president. And so that explains why he has abundant evidence and ten episodes of obstruction of justice and yet decided not to indict the president because he felt he couldn't under DOJ policy.

BOLDUAN: Let me ask you, because you called for an impeachment inquiry launched into President Trump. I want to play for you what the Judiciary Chairman Gerry Nadler said today about that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY): Articles of impeachment are under consideration as part of the committee's investigation although no final determination has been made.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLDUAN: This is the most directly he's actually ever talked about impeachment proceedings. Are you sensing any change here?

RASKIN: Well, I think I -- I do detect a little bit of a shift there, just because there is greater public consciousness and awareness of the contents of the report. And people are also starting to talk about other kinds of impeachable offenses that are out there.

[19:35:00] The key point to remember is there is a difference between impeachment inquiry, which is looking into all of the evidence, and articles of impeachment and actually voting on them. Actually, a majority of impeachment inquiries in congressional history have not led to articles of impeachment. So, it's not a foreordained conclusion here.

However we have seen very serious evidence adduced by the special counsel and coming from other places.

BOLDUAN: All right. So, when you find out about the committee, let us know so we can a make a schedule. Appreciate it.

RASKIN: I absolutely will.

BOLDUAN: Thank you, Congressman.

RASKIN: And if you hear anything, you tell me --

BOLDUAN: I will. Absolutely, I'll call you right up.

RASKIN: Thank you so much.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source