CNN "The Situation Room" - Transcript: Interview with Congressman Jim Himes

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

BLITZER: Yes, that's important information indeed. Sara, thank you very, very much.

Joining us now, Congressman Jim Himes. He's a Democrat who serves on the House Intelligence Committee.

Congressman, thanks for joining us.

As you know, the president says there were, in his words, no questions on collusion in those list of 49 questions leaked to "The New York Times."

When you read these questions, though, what do you gather about where the Mueller investigation right now is heading?

REP. JIM HIMES (D), CONNECTICUT: Well, it's heading in at least a couple of directions. Obviously, lots of questions that point to the possibility of obstruction of justice in the firing of James Comey. What did you know, when did you know it?

Questions about the president's business practices and real estate deals in Russia. That's a whole other line of inquiry. And despite what the president said, you know, some real questions about the possibility of collusion.

You know, again, what did you know and when did you know it? So, clearly, this leak -- and it's interesting. I can't think of a leak that has occurred out of Mueller's team. That has been a hermetically sealed operation. So, it's intriguing to consider that the probability is that the leak actually came out of the White House.

But, in any event, that leak indicates that this is a very broad- ranging investigation with a lot of topics on the table.

BLITZER: Yes, out of the White House or out of the president's personal attorney staff or somewhere along those lines, not necessarily, as you point out, the Robert Mueller team.

Do you think Mueller knows the answers to most if not all of these questions already?

HIMES: Well, my guess is, it's a mix.

And, of course, the scary thing for any individual being interviewed in such an investigation, and certainly for the president, who is temperamentally incapable of sort of going first to the truth, the scary thing is that you just don't know which questions the investigators do know the answer to. And, again, it must just be fascinating to be Trump's -- President

Trump's attorneys right now, because, you know, on the one hand, you see the president tell lies that are obviously strategic, and then it's almost as though he does it partly out of instinct, to describe a world that he would like to be in, rather than the world he is actually in.

So, I have got to tell you, it's going to create a huge problem for the country, because, traditionally, presidents in these situations, like President Bill Clinton, have sat with the investigators and done these interviews. But in this case, boy, those lawyers are going to be very nervous people.

BLITZER: Yes, I'm sure they are.

The president is arguing, as you know, you can't obstruct justice for a crime that never happened. How do you see it?

HIMES: Well, that's just not true.

You know, you can obstruct an investigation, and that's the point. If there's an investigation under way, and you look to get in the way of that investigation by lying, by stopping somebody from doing something, regardless of what that investigation is about, you could be obstructing.

And, by the way, you don't even need to be the subject of that investigation, the target of that investigation. You can obstruct an investigation that is of a third party. So, anyway, I don't know where the president is getting that idea.

Obviously, it's important for him to repeat the mantra that he believes that there was no collusion.

BLITZER: If Mueller doesn't find any underlying crime, do you think the American people would really want to go ahead with impeachment?

HIMES: Well, it's an interesting question. Without a crime, there is no impeachment.

So the Constitution is pretty clear that a president is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. We are a long way from that point, Wolf. The president has obviously behaved in ways that has caused a great deal of consternation for a lot of us, but it is really important, particularly as we go into election season, to remember that we cannot let impeachment go the way, for example, of the appointment of Supreme Court justices.

And what I mean by that is becoming just another arena for the partisan battle. You know, the last thing this country needs -- and, look, I will be the first to say I have been pretty critical of this president on any number of a dozen counts, but the last thing this country needs is impeachment proceedings that move forward as a matter of course because we don't like the president.

To answer your question, unless there is a very clear crime, impeachment is not something that is appropriate for us to talk about.

BLITZER: Some members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus have reportedly drafted articles of impeachment against the deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, who's overseeing the Mueller investigation.

Rosenstein responded today by saying the Justice Department won't be extorted. He used that word.

Does Rosenstein have your support to continue in his role?

HIMES: Well, of course he does.

Look, poor Rosenstein and his boss, the attorney general, have suffered, you know, near weekly attacks from their boss, from the president of the United States. You know, and this is something new in our history. The president is not supposed to regard the Department of Justice the way President Trump regards -- quote, unquote -- "his Department of Justice."

[18:15:02]

It's not his. And so he has attacked the attorney general. He's attacked Rosenstein, by the way, Rosenstein being his appointment as deputy attorney general.

And, look, the Freedom Caucus, I would like to read those articles of impeachment, because I know more about, as a member of the Intelligence Committee, Rosenstein's activity than most, and he has done absolutely nothing to warrant impeachment.

And from a political angle, I mean, again, this takes us back to the Clinton impeachment. If a bunch of House members move toward with impeaching the deputy attorney general, when he's running this investigation, I got to tell you, there's at least 50 or 60 Republican members of the House who would look the Freedom Caucus in the eye and say, you know, this is how I am going to lose my seat.

So my guess is that it doesn't gain a lot of traction.

BLITZER: Congressman Mark Meadows, the leader of the Freedom Caucus, he responded only a few moments ago on Twitter.

He said this. And I will read it to you. "If he," Rosenstein, "believes being asked to do his job is extortion, then Rod Rosenstein should step aside and allow us to find a new deputy attorney general, preferably one who is interested in transparency."

Your reaction.

HIMES: Well, my reaction is -- and I like Mark Meadows. He's a friend. In this instance, he has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.

Rod Rosenstein has done nothing untoward. And, secondly, the use of the word transparency there, this takes us back to Jim Comey talking about the Clinton investigation. Investigations are supposed to happen in an environment of actual secrecy, right?

Investigations don't always lead to charges. Sometimes, they go down rabbit holes that if they were exposed would cause innocent people to have their reputations questioned. So, again, in this instance, Mark Meadows is wrong.

It reminds me of something that Devin Nunes, who has since changed his tune pretty dramatically, but Devin Nunes -- and this is his words, not mine, not words I would use, but Devin Nunes characterized the Freedom Caucus as lemmings with suicide vests on.

And if you're a moderate Republican in a district where you're struggling to get reelected, the Freedom Caucus moving ahead with impeachment of Rod Rosenstein would be a pretty good way to assure the defeat of a lot of moderate Republicans in the House.

BLITZER: Congressman Jim Himes, thanks for joining us.

HIMES: Thank you, Wolf.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source