CNN "The Situation Room" - Transcript: Interview with Rep. Mike Quigley

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

BLITZER: All right, Jim, thank you, Jim Acosta at the White House.

Joining us now, Congressman Mike Quigley. He's a Democrat. He serves on the House Intelligence Committee.

Congressman, I want to get your reaction to the news that the Justice Department is now backing up Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin in his refusal to hand over the president's tax returns.

What's your reaction?

REP. MIKE QUIGLEY (D-IL): Another real serious blow to the independence of the Justice Department.

Wolf, I think it was a year ago, on your show, I said what the Russians did was extraordinary, attacking our democratic process. But in the final analysis, I think we're going to look back and say that the president's reaction was worse, will have a long -- longer-term, greater impact on our country.

Will this precedent remain where the Justice Department becomes just another private attorney for the White House that says that the Mueller report -- lied about the Mueller report, acted like a press secretary for the president of the United States, and now today puts out an opinion that is just extraordinary, defending the White House and their ability to do what's exactly opposite of the law?

BLITZER: The chairman of the House Ways and Committee, Congressman Neal, he's been pretty cautious in dealing with all of this so far. How do you think he should respond?

QUIGLEY: Oh, I think he's going to push forward. And I think that makes sense.

He has been part of the investigative track. What I talked about just a few weeks ago is the fact that the investigative track needs an impeachment inquiry. And here's why.

Richie's argument is a good one. The chairman's argument makes sense. If we're going to do our business, the law says you shall turn this over. And in preparation for a law, he needs this information.

I think questioning whether or not the president of the United States was compromised, or whether he's violated the Emoluments Clause through an impeachment inquiry, gives us a much stronger legal argument in court to get the information we need to find out what took place, and -- or whether or not the president of the United States, to remind ourselves of President Nixon, whether or not the president is a crook.

BLITZER: Let's turn to some other important news.

The president now trying to walk back his comments on accepting foreign information, but he still says he would want to hear about the information first before potentially contacting the FBI. [18:10:08]

What message does that send to Russia, other hostile foreign powers who are seeking to undermine potentially the next U.S. election?

QUIGLEY: Yes, we will look at your information, but it better be -- it better be better than it was last time, I guess, because, clearly, at the Trump Tower meeting, they were excited to get the dirt on Hillary Clinton.

And they were initially upset with how good it was. So what's -- how do I equate this to a character test? The president of the United States finds a wallet on the street, and he's going to turn it in, but, what, he's going to find out how much money is in there first? He's going to find out how valuable this information -- it is of value.

It's also someone offering them dirt, a foreign power. Just this week, I questioned the Republican witness in an intelligence hearing. And I asked him, would you have called the FBI? And he said, absolutely. And, of course, he was right. I think most people would.

BLITZER: Basically, the president is arguing that this kind of information is the same kind of opposition research any campaign would seek to develop. What do you say to that?

QUIGLEY: I think most of -- candidates seek opposition research. And that's appropriate. You're going to know what kind of votes the person took. Is there something the public has a right to know about someone seeking high public office?

That is entirely different than a foreign adversary, perhaps our greatest adversary, offering assistance and what that involves. It builds into the case of whether or not the president was compromised. And, clearly, he'd be owing.

There's a reason, going back to our founding fathers, George Washington was worried about foreign impacts on elections. And to this day, it's still of great concern to the American public.

BLITZER: As you know, House Democrats, they're planning to pass a package of bills on election security. It's an effort to do just that.

Failed in the Senate yesterday. So what's the goal here? You pass legislation in the House, but it doesn't even usually come up for a vote in the Senate.

QUIGLEY: We take every track we can.

Two years ago, I passed an appropriations measure that funded election security grants for new equipment, for training, for software to prevent the actual hacking into our equipment. Just this last week, that committee I had approved $600 million more. That's a good start.

But we have 40 states whose equipment is so old, it can't even handle modern anti-hacking software. Thirteen states don't even have a paper trail to know if they have been hacked. We have a lot of work to do.

How do we compare this to what we did in the past? After Bush-Gore, and the hanging chad issue, where the integrity of the American election process was drawn into question, the federal government spent $3.5 billion buying new equipment, because the integrity of the democratic process was so important.

Here we are fighting to get to a third of that point. And that election, as you know, is coming quick.

BLITZER: On the issue of obstruction, Congressman, President Trump essentially told ABC News that his former White House Counsel Don McGahn lied to the special counsel. What do you make of that?

QUIGLEY: The president stands alone. He's loyal to anybody, until they start telling the truth.

The president gets in the room with the truth, and a fight breaks out. That's exactly why Mr. McGahn has to be able to come testify in front of Congress under oath and tell us exactly what took place.

It's why those who are part of this investigation, part of the counterintelligence investigation, we need to bring all of these people forward, and, frankly, including the FBI director. What happened to that counterintelligence investigation? Where's the information that was devised?

There were FBI officials involved in the special -- in the special counsel's investigation? What did they glean? Where is that information? It should be brought before Congress for the exact same reason.

BLITZER: Congressman Quigley, thanks so much for joining us.

QUIGLEY: Thank you. Take care.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source