CNN "Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees" - Transcript: Interview with Rep. Himes

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

COOPER: Congressman Himes, CNN's new reporting that Lieutenant Colonel Vindman testified that he was concerned -- or he was convinced there was in fact a quid pro quo, how consequential is that confirmation from him given his firsthand knowledge of so many pieces of this puzzle?

REP. JIM HIMES (D-CT): Yes. Anderson, I don't want to get into what was said behind closed doors, but obviously Colonel Vindman's opening statement was made available. You know, I want to sort of downplay the importance of this so-called quid pro quo. Quid pro quo is what the defenders of the president are saying is essential for the president to have been guilty of something. It's not.

And, you know, people have read the transcript. We know that the president tried to pressure a foreign new and vulnerable president to do his political dirty work. So, no quid pro quo is required.

Obviously, a quid pro quo makes the situation more serious, but I would also point out, Anderson, that the chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, two weeks ago, went before the cameras and basically admitted to a quid pro quo. And, of course, many of the witnesses -- and I say this based on the opening statements that have been made public by those witnesses. Many of those witnesses have certainly pointed in the direction of the notion that military aid, a meeting in the White House were held up as a way of exerting leverage on the new president of the Ukraine. That is a very serious issue.

COOPER: Also, part of Vindman's testimony -- I know you can't really go into details on what he said -- he believes came fro a July 10th meet between American and Ukrainian officials. It seems like of all the witnesses who testified about that meeting, the only person whose account doesn't seem to match up is Ambassador Sondland's.

Is his testimony something -- do you want to hear from him again?

[20:05:01]

HIMES: I do personally, and I don't speak for the committee on this. But my guess is, as you know, Anderson, there will be public and open hearings. My guess is that Ambassador Sondland would be one of those individuals that we would want to hear from because -- and, again, just referring to the opening statement which was made public by Ambassador Sondland or by someone, if you read that, there is a bizarre level of being tuned out to what was going on.

And there's also some contradiction in that opening statement. On the one hand, you know, he was the one who sent that famous text saying no quid pro quo. And I want to emphasize a quid pro quo is not necessary for there to have been an abuse of power. He then turns around and describes something that looks an awful lot like using the resources of the United States, military aid and an Oval Office meeting, to pressure the new president to do what President Trump thought was in his own political interest.

COOPER: And John Bolton, his lawyers now saying he will not appear without a subpoena. Is it clear to you that he would cooperate if a subpoena is issued?

HIMES: Well, hard to know, Anderson. And I'm not current on all of the conversations that are occurring with respect to John Bolton. But I would just point out that the watching public may think that a subpoena is something that is used to drag people in.

Oftentimes, a subpoena is just used because in a very polarized and political moment, the one that we live in today, a witness who may want to come testify may also want to be compelled to do so for whatever reason. And who knows? Certainly people who have sort of future aspirations to work in Washington, they may want to be able to say in the future that, look, I didn't cooperate. I didn't voluntarily go in, but I was forced to by the Congress.

So I wouldn't read too much into this question of subpoena or no subpoena.

COOPER: Do you think, then, tomorrow the ruling when a judge decides whether or not Bolton's top aides or one of his top aides has to comply with the subpoena? I mean, if the court rules the White House can block their people from appearing, what might that mean for the investigation moving forward?

HIMES: Well, I would be shocked if that happened, particularly given the vote that's occurring tomorrow. Remember, the vote tomorrow here in the Congress will be one to essentially establish procedures and to formalize what has been happening absent the vote that the Republicans have demanded, even though of course as everyone knows a vote is not required by either the constitution or the rules. After tomorrow, there will be no ability to say, oh, I'm sorry, Congress isn't actually doing an impeachment proceeding here.

Courts have ruled time and time again, including the Supreme Court, that impeachment is sort of Congress at its most powerful. Nobody, not the courts, and certainly not the subject of an impeachment, gets to say, oh, gosh, sorry. I don't want to go along with that any more than an average citizen in this country gets to say, golly, I know the police are doing an investigation about whether I was doing X, Y, or Z. I don't want to participate.

You know, if you have a congressional subpoena, you show up, full stop. And that's going to be the end point here regardless of what the circumstances are around it.

COOPER: Congressman Himes, I appreciate your time. Thank you.

HIMES: Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source