NBC "Meet the Press" - Transcript: Interview with Rep. Jim Himes

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. JIM HIMES:

Good morning, Chuck.

CHUCK TODD:

Let me start with this: Will there be new information the public learns from these public hearings on Wednesday morning?

REP. JIM HIMES:

There will be new information. I suspect most of the public has not read the release transcripts. And what they're going to hear is -- they are going to hear immensely patriotic, beautiful articulated -- articulate people telling the story of a President who -- let's forget quid pro quo; quid pro quo is one of these things to muddy the works -- who extorted a vulnerable comp -- country by holding up military aid. So yes, they are going to hear something new. And Chuck, if you'll, if you'll grant me one second here, my head is only now decombusting from the exchange you had with Rand Paul. I've spent 11 years in public service defending the press, and when Senator Rand Paul comes on and says that what Donald Trump did -- and the transcript is there -- extorting a foreign government for his personal political gain, and that's exactly the same thing as Joe Biden, "Exactly the same thing," is what he said, as Joe Biden saying that this prosecutor should be released. When Joe Biden is acting in consistency with American foreign policy and back then we had a whole list of things that had to be done and this was American foreign policy, it was European Union policy, it was IMF policy that this prosecutor needed to go. When Rand Paul says that that's exactly the same thing as the president of the United States saying, "You need to find dirt on my political opponent," and with all due respect, Chuck, when you say, "Well, do two wrongs make a right?" Let's be very clear. The president of the United States demanding, extorting a vulnerable country to do his political bidding, to go after his opponent, has nothing to do with Joe Biden executing the foreign policy of the United States or Hillary Clinton, who is a private citizen, doing opposition research on her, on her presidential opponent. Those are radically different things. What the President did is wrong and impeachable.

CHUCK TODD:

Let me ask you something. You just said you think the words quid pro quo shouldn't be used anymore. It's a lot of your own colleagues that have been using it. It's part of this debate. Do you feel as if that, that that word just doesn't penetrate the seriousness with what happened?

REP. JIM HIMES:

Well, I have two problems with quid pro quo. Number one, when you're trying to persuade the American people of something that is really pretty simple, which is that the President acted criminally and extorted, in the way a mob boss would extort somebody, a vulnerable foreign country, it's probably best not to use Latin words to explain it. But the other thing I object to is that this is where the Republicans went. Extortion doesn't require a "you give me this and I'll give you that" kind of quid pro quo. It's simple requires using your muscle to get something that you don't have a right to. So look -- and by the way, of course the crowning absurdity here is now they're all pretty much admitting, because Ambassador Sondland has refreshed his recollection, they're all basically admitting there was a quid pro quo. But gosh, it wasn't that bad. It was exactly the same thing as Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton. So, look, we've got to get off this quid pro quo thing, because it's complained. They've already attested to the fact that it occurred. And what we're dealing with here is corruption, abuse of power in a way that damaged American national security.

CHUCK TODD:

Are you at all concerned that if there's one missing piece of the story, it is you don't have yet a firsthand witness of the President directing Mulvaney and the OMB to put this hold on here. Obviously, that's a closed circle of -- you haven't been able to talk to people in that circle yet. How important is it for you to have any sort of first hand witness in that circle before you vote out articles of impeachment?

REP. JIM HIMES:

Well, that's a really good question. And I think what's going to happen in the next couple of weeks is that the President's defense that you heard last week, which is all these people had secondhand knowledge, that's going to crumble. Lieutenant Colonel Vindman was on the call that he had with the Ukrainian President. A lot of people who -- remember, are the President's people. These are the people who are in the White House. These aren't Democrats on a mission to bring down the President. The President's own people will testify to what they knew. You ask a very interesting and specific question. Of course we would like to have Mick Mulvaney into the Congress to say what I think we know. You will learn in the testimony that it was Mick Mulvaney that was driving the decision and pushing the decision to suspend the aid. And everybody who saw it happen will tell you we had no idea where this was coming from, and it was unanimously opposed. So, it would be good to have Mick Mulvaney come in and explain to us his conversations with the President. But remember, Chuck, his conversations with the President, unlike all of the other claims of privilege, that is actually probably covered by executive privilege. But the American people are going to need to decide did Mick Mulvaney go home and think this up like, "Yeah, what the heck? I'm going to suspend $400 million in military aid to Ukraine"? Or did he perhaps get some kind of suggestion or order from the President of the United States?

CHUCK TODD:

Is there at all a distinction, since he is still a confirmed head of a cabinet level agency, Office of Management and Budget. Does that at all impact his claims of executive privilege?

REP. JIM HIMES:

Well, that's a good question. I can tell you for certain that the White House would say that the conversations that Mick Mulvaney as chief of staff would have with the president would be protected by executive privilege. Wherever you come out on that, of course that is an argument that I'm quite sure could go on for years. As a practical matter, I don't think we're going to hear from it. But what the America people are going to hear, 'cause we'll ask this question, is how many times in American history has the director of the Office of Management and Budget sat in a room full of national security leaders and said, "We're cutting off this aid." And what the America people will hear is that that is a wildly unusual, if not unique, event.

CHUCK TODD:

Are you at all concerned that your colleagues on the other side of the aisle may turn the process and make it such a hard process to follow for the public, perhaps some might call it a sabotaging of the process, where it makes it more difficult for you to air your -- air this public testimony?

REP. JIM HIMES:

Well, of course that's been the strategy all along, of course, has to been to attack the process. And when you look at their witness list, you can sort of tell what they're doing. They're really doing two or three things. Number one, they're calling a number of witnesses that we've already deposed. These are witnesses who aren't going to say that the President's actions were okay. In fact, they'll say that they had very serious concerns about it. But they'll say, "Well, gosh, I didn't know that this was going on. I didn't -- I wasn't sure if this was illegal." That's not a very strong defense. The other thing of course, you know, Joe Biden's son is on that witness list. They're going to try to do exactly what you were pushing back on Senator Paul for doing. They would like to bring Joe Biden's son in front of the American people to discuss his role on the board of Burisma. As you pointed out with Senator Paul, we can have a long conversation about whether the sons and daughters of high ranking officials should do that sort of thing. That has nothing to do, absolutely nothing to do with the actions of the United States president in extorting Ukraine in a way that damaged our national security.

CHUCK TODD:

Congressman Jim Himes, a Democrat from Connecticut on the Intel Committee. You will become an even more familiar face to viewers, I imagine, beginning on Wednesday. Thank you for coming on, sir, and sharing your views.

REP. JIM HIMES:

Thank you, Chuck.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source