CNN "The Situation Room" - Transcript: Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL) is interviewed About Trump's Tax Return, Impeachment

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Joining us now, another Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Mike Quigley of Illinois.

A statement released, Congressman, from Jay Sekulow, the counsel to the President, says we have filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to overturn the Second Circuit decision regarding a subpoena issued by the New York County district attorney. So, what's your reaction?

REP. MIKE QUIGLEY (D-IL): It's not a surprise. In my mind, this is the most opaque administration in our lifetime. We've seen it from day one. We're seeing it in the actions that are taking place in the investigations at the forefront of the impeachment inquiry. The fact that so many of these important witnesses are being blocked. The fact that he refused to testify before the special counsel. The fact that they haven't released a single document under lawful subpoena. Well, this is a President who doesn't want to cooperate and doesn't really want the world to see what his actions have been.

BLITZER: Well, let's get back to the information, the impeachment investigation that we've been watching. Ambassador Bill Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, as you know he revealed some sensitive new information when he appeared before your committee yesterday about a conversation between the President and Ambassador Gordon Sondland that one of the ambassador's aides, David Holmes, overheard a conversation between the President and Ambassador Sondland, in which they discussed the Giuliani investigation of the Bidens among other things. Will he -- he'll be deposed tomorrow behind closed doors, but will he eventually become publicly and appear before your committee?

QUIGLEY: Look, I think what -- that deposition will tell us a great deal, but I also think it points an extraordinary arrow on Ambassador Sondland's public testimony on the heels of his deposition. And the fact that he had to amend that deposition with things that he had recollected.

I would like to think, my philosophy on all of these things is, it's never too late to do the right thing. If the ambassador has some new memory catch-up, that he'll let the American public know about this phone conversation as well, as well as any other conversations that are pertinent to the investigation.

[17:25:08]

BLITZER: Do you believe Ambassador Sondland was truthful when he spoke to your committee?

QUIGLEY: I think he had an extraordinary lapse of memory. I am not going to condemn anyone on this because I truly believe we need people to move forward and tell us the whole truth. And I'm going to give him every opportunity to tell the American people what he knows.

BLITZER: What do you hope to learn from him next Wednesday when he appears in public?

QUIGLEY: Did this conversation take place? What exactly did he say? What did the President say in return?

And I think, again, it's going to be very important, what else don't we know. What other conversations do you have about the investigations with the President of the United States and what were you sent there for? It clearly was not his assignment, as the ambassador to the E.U., Ukraine's not a part of that. Why was hep sent there? And why was an extraordinarily well-functioning ambassador removed?

BLITZER: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says the President's conduct, which is under investigation right now, in her words, makes what Nixon did look almost small and calls it bribery. Do you agree with her?

QUIGLEY: Look, let's remember what Richard Nixon did. At the very least, he kept it within the bounds of the United States. He committed obstruction. There was a conspiracy. He obstructed Congress at least four times. That's all very important.

I think what the President has done is in his three years is obstructed an ongoing basis and I do believe that there are issues that we don't necessarily have fleshed out yet about what happened in the 2016 involvement by the Russians. But here he extorted or however -- whatever legal term we want to use, an ally at a very vulnerable time. And he did it for his own political purpose.

If that's left unpunished, what is the precedent for future presidents? Is this going to be OK? Is this the new norm that you can use? Withholding military aid to help yourself personally or for your political gain? That's going to be very troubling for our country.

BLITZER: Congressman Quigley, thanks so much for joining us.

QUIGLEY: Glad to be here. Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source