CNN "Erin Burnett Outfront" - Transcript: Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) Discussed About The Rebranding Of Quid Pro Quo To Bribery Which According To The Constitution Is Impeachable

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

BURNETT: All right. Kaitlan, thank you very much. And out front now, Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin who is on both the Oversight and Judiciary Committees. So, obviously, front and center in all of the testimony.

So Congressman, Speaker Pelosi is now using the word bribery, specifically. Chairman Schiff also indicating bribery could be an impeachment charge against the President.

[19:05:03]

Is this essentially a rebranding of quid pro quo? Bribery is now the new word that will be used, because it is the word in the Constitution.

REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): Well, bribery and extortion are intricately interwoven in what the President did in the Ukraine shakedown. Essentially, he took this $391 million that we had voted in military and security assistance for a besieged foreign ally resisting Russian aggression and occupation. And said I'll give you this if you comply with all of my demands and all of my conditions, that's bribery.

Or, alternatively, you can view it as a shakedown, as exercising coercive leverage to extort these conditions from the Ukrainian government. In either event, the President has betrayed his oath of office. He's betrayed our foreign policy and he's betrayed our election, because he tried to lure a foreign government into the election in order to essentially smear one of his rivals.

BURNETT: So you're going to be in the room tomorrow for the Holmes deposition. Now, according to Ambassador Taylor, Holmes overheard this phone call between President Trump and Ambassador Sondland which took place in a restaurant. And Trump according to what Taylor says Holmes will say asked for an update on the investigations in Ukraine and then after the call Sondland said to the aide that Trump cared more about the Bidens and the investigations than Ukraine.

Why are we only finding out about this call now? Does that bother you?

RASKIN: Well, no. This is how trials work and this is how evidence comes into being. Certain people testify and then other people hear things that remind them of things that they saw, and they knew, and I'm not quite sure what the situation was here.

But, look, all of the evidence points to just one story which is the President deployed Giuliani and his team of Parnas and Fruman to go over to Ukraine to clear the U.S. Ambassador out of the way and we'll hear about that tomorrow with Ambassador Yovanovitch's testimony to get her out of the way in order - better to apply direct pressure onto the Ukrainian government to do the political bidding of the President. And all of that was about his personal reelection.

It had nothing to do with the strategic foreign policy objectives of America, much less the defense of democracy and human rights in Ukraine.

BURNETT: So I want to ask you about Ambassador Yovanovitch in a moment, but first on Holmes. When you say you're not quite sure what happened there, what kind of questions do you have? What do you want to know from Holmes tomorrow?

RASKIN: Well, I would like to know exactly what he heard and how he knew it was the President who was on the phone and I would like to know exactly what he heard the President say, what were the words. And this is just one more piece of evidence that fits into an entire sequence of events.

There's no rival hypothesis out there about what happened. All of the bricks are adding up to one big wall, which says the President tried to exercise coercive control over Ukraine or to bribe Ukraine in order to do his political bidding.

BURNETT: So you're talking about all of these bricks adding up to one big wall and yet multiple sources are telling us that in a private meeting this week, Speaker Pelosi and her top lieutenants were skeptical that there would be any dramatic shift in public opinion even as these public hearings are getting underway. Do you share that skepticism or not, Congressman?

RASKIN: Well, I'm by nature a very optimistic person and I think that the vast majority of Americans want their government to be involved in good public policy and to act with honesty and integrity. And I think when the story gets out, most Americans will be really shocked and very upset about what they're seeing.

On the other hand, there have been big changes not so much in the basic character and honesty of American people but in people's access to information. There are people whose only access to the news is through certain channels like Fox News that are not reporting the facts in a disinterested and objective way and that's a real danger for the Republic.

BURNETT: So tomorrow will be the second public impeachment hearing. Obviously, you referenced Ambassador Yovanovitch. She's going to testify about an alleged smear campaign against her which led to Trump getting rid of her. The thing is that Trump owns that. He says, "Absolutely, that's what I did." And the White House tonight is telling CNN, "Is that an impeachable offense? The Ambassador serve at the pleasure of the President."

Does the President need to give any reason really at all to get rid of an ambassador or is he on more solid footing on this?

RASKIN: Well, I think that just confuses the issue. They're answering the wrong question. No one is saying impeach the President because he removed an ambassador. The question is whether the removal of the ambassador was for reasons of clearing all obstacles to their political and financial schemes in Ukraine and that's what took place with Ambassador Yovanovitch.

Rudy Giuliani and his team wanted to get rid of her, so they could exercise the leverage over President Zelensky that they wanted. She was a real corruption fighter.

[19:10:03]

They were on the side of all of the corruption. They were trying to exploit the corruption and direct the corruption at Zelensky. So the President could get the favors that he wanted. She got in the way because she was forwarding the real American policy which was to oppose corruption in Ukraine and to try to nurture and strengthen democratic institutions there.

All over Europe, all over the world, there's a struggle between the tyrants and the despots. Putin's team and Orban's team, they're all on the side of corruption. And she was opposing them and they wanted to get her out of the way so the President could essentially work his will on Ukraine.

BURNETT: Well, it'll be obviously fascinating tomorrow and at least equally as much as the crucial closed-door one that you will be a part of as well. Thank you so much, Congressman Raskin. I appreciate your time tonight.

RASKIN: Thank you for having me.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source