MSNBC "All In with Chris Hayes" - Transcript Interview with Jamie Raskin

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

HAYES: Joining me now for more of the President`s assault on the rule of

law, Congressman Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland, who`s a member of the

judiciary committee that has oversight over William Barr`s Department of

Justice, has been a chief adviser to the Democratic caucus throughout

impeachment and on oversight.

Let`s talk about your -- from where you sit as somewhat of a principal, it

wasn`t your personal subpoenas. You don`t chair a committee that subpoenaed

these financial records. But as a member of Congress, as part of the team

that sort of thinks about where Congress stands with relation to the

President, your reaction to today`s rulings?

REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): Well, the Vance decision, the prosecutor`s

decision was great, and it was an emphatic endorsement of the rule of law

as we`ve always understood it which is that everybody owes the government

his or her honest testimony and his or her documents when there`s a trial

going on, and nobody`s above the law including the President of the United

States.

And so, I thought Chief Justice Roberts wrote a really authoritative and

magisterial opinion. And they preempted a lot of the self-pitying, whining

diatribes that come from Donald Trump complaining about it going through

every president that has accepted this principle going back to 1807 in the

Aaron Burr treason trial when Burr moved for a subpoena of Thomas

Jefferson`s records and got them.

And Chief Justice Marshall said that the President does not stand exempt

from the constitution and from the due process commands of the bill of

rights for other people. So, we all owe dishonor on his testimony. It was a

relatively simple case only they knew about it was that it was a state

government that was issuing the subpoena of state prosecutors, and we know

how much Donald Trump has contempt for the states. And they thought that

that was ridiculous that he could be subjected to the burdens of doing

this. But the court said it was exactly like the burdens that were allowed

against Bill Clinton and Clinton versus Jones.

Now, as for our case, the Mazars case, we feel pretty vindicated. With

this, it`s pretty much the best we could have gotten out of a court which

still leans heavily to the right through all the gerrymandering and the

refusal to even have a hearing for my constituent Merrick Garland, when he

was nominated by President Obama.

It`s the best we could have gotten because it was another obvious case. Of

course, Congress should be able to subpoena what it wants from the

president. We are the lawmaking branch of government, what James Madison

called the predominant branch of government. And we need to obtain the

knowledge and information that we seek in order to govern, in order to

legislate.

But as you are suggesting, I agree with your analysis, they wanted to slow

the whole train down so that perhaps, you know, what the Conservatives

bought out of the situation in the 7-2 ruling was this nebulous, non-

exhaustive four part, four factor test about the necessity of Congress

getting the information, the narrowness of the subpoena, how substantial

our evidence is, or needing to get it, which makes it sound like we`re an

administrative agency. And I consider that a real affront and insult to

legislative power.

And then you balance all of that against the burden on the president, which

they did quickly dismiss saying we fail numerous times before, that the

time of the President and the burden on the President`s attention is not

justification for him not turning over documents that are subpoenaed

despite our justice.

HAYES: I just want to note this. You don`t have to respond to this. But

there`s something truly darkly comedic about the President`s lawyers being

before the Supreme Court saying it is too burdensome on the man`s time and

his attention for his financial -- you know, his accounting firm to turn

over its records while the president is like live-tweeting 3:00 a.m. Fox

programming as if this is a man who`s just so consumed by his work, that

like, how dare you. And he made this argument the straight face. Like, I

mean, obviously, the presidency is an institution and not this president,

but it`s a little hard to take with this guy.

RASKIN: I think that Chief Justice Roberts himself took a glancing oculi

shot at precisely that humorous point when he said as Chief Justice

Marshall observed in the Aaron Burr case the duties of the President might

be intense, but they`re not unremitting. And that would be the mildest

thing you could say about Donald Trump who does no work at all and spends

the whole day sitting on his bed, tweeting out in response to things he

watches on Fox News. Forgive me for mentioning your competition. So anyway,

I think --

(CROSSTALK)

HAYES: Yes. (INAUDIBLE) probably find a few minutes.

RASKIN: It was -- it was a good day for the rule of law, Chris. But, you

know, we`re in the end days here of a nightmarish authoritarian, right-wing

predatory presidency. He`s going -- getting increasingly desperate. When

you were saying there was one phenomenon, like he can`t bully, and it`s

COVID-19, that assumes that he considers COVID-19 an enemy.

And I`m not sure he does anymore. I think he believes that COVID-19 and the

rampant spread the disease around the country is his best bet for voter

suppression and being able to manipulate the electoral process. And so, I

don`t think he considers it an enemy anymore. And he certainly not doing

anything to try to stem the tide of diplomacy.

HAYES: I don`t make a lot of predictions, but I will make this one, that

this is not the last time we will hear from the Supreme Court on important

balance of power, constitutional issues in the year 2020. Congressman Jamie

Raskin, who is one of the sharpest constitutional thinkers in all of

Congress, thank you so much for your time tonight.

RASKIN: My pleasure, Chris.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source