CNN "The Situation Room" - Transcript: Interview with Sen. Dick Durbin

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

BLITZER: We will see how they coordinate.

All right, Manu, thank you very much.

Let's get some more on all of this.

Democratic Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois is joining us. He's a member of the Judiciary Committee. He's also the minority whip, the number two Democrat in the U.S. Senate.

Senator, thanks so much for joining us.

SEN. RICHARD DURBIN (D-IL): Thanks, Wolf.

BLITZER: All right, so let's begin with Secretary Acosta's news conference today.

You have called on him to resign. Did anything you heard today from him change your mind?

DURBIN: Well, of course not.

I voted against him, as you mentioned, when he was -- had his nomination before us for secretary of labor, and this case did come up. But more details have come forward in the period of time since he was approved by the Senate with other votes.

And I have to tell you, when I listened to him talk about the hard time that he gave Mr. Epstein, it sounded more like happy time. The fact that he could spend 12 hours a day outside of his cell in his office, and then go back and have a sleepover, that didn't seem like the kind of hard time that this kind of serious charge would merit.

BLITZER: Yes, he had a car and a driver pick him up in the morning, take him to his office. A car and a driver would drive him back, spend 12 hours a day in that office away from that prison.

The Judiciary Committee chairman, Lindsey Graham, a man you know well, he wants to see the results of the Justice Department investigation first, the investigation into Secretary Acosta, before deciding on whether a hearing in the Senate is necessary.

You have a pretty good relationship with Senator Graham. Have you spoken to him about this?

DURBIN: I haven't spoken about this specific case.

It's OK that he wants to look at the Department of Justice background sheet before he makes a final decision.

But this is the kind of thing that, typically, the Senate Judiciary Committee engages in. But for the last several years, under President Trump, many times, the Senate Judiciary Committee has been absent without leave. When it came to the Trump investigation, what little was done was done on the House side.

So I hope that we see a new life in the committee. Its constitutional role is important, and its role in history is important. And I hope that Lindsey Graham will lead us forward in that regard.

BLITZER: I spoke yesterday with Preet Bharara, the former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. He's a CNN legal analyst now.

He believes it's significant that the Public Corruption Unit over in New York, the Southern District of New York, is on this case. How do you interpret that?

DURBIN: I don't know. I have to leave it to Preet. I have a great respect for him. I remember when he was a staffer to then Senator Schumer on the Senate Judiciary Committee, a very sharp fellow and an excellent prosecutor.

I don't know about the public corruption -- corruption side of this, how that might go, where it might delve. It would be pure speculation.

BLITZER: Because he suggesting that perhaps there were some public figures who may eventually emerge, unindicted co-conspirators or whatever.

No evidence of that, but that -- a lot of experts who know something about the Southern District of New York are suggesting that.

Do you want more details on the nature of President Trump's relationship with Epstein and Bill Clinton's relationship with Epstein, for that matter?

DURBIN: Well, I don't know that that's been associated with any of the charges against Epstein either in Florida or now in New York, his association with either of those presidents.

So I wouldn't necessarily say that that is relevant evidence at that point. When we're talking about human trafficking of this scale by this man, there's plenty of obvious evidence to lead to this indictment.

BLITZER: Let's turn to the upcoming testimony next week from the former special counsel, Robert Mueller. House Democrats on the Intelligence Committee and the Judiciary Committee, they're strategizing right now how best to approach these hearings, get the most out of them.

Do you have any advice for them?

DURBIN: Wolf, you have covered a lot of these hearings, haven't you?

BLITZER: Yes.

DURBIN: You know what one hour on each side comes down to, when you have...

BLITZER: That's because -- that's because the lawmakers usually like to make statements and speeches...

DURBIN: That's right.

BLITZER: ... as opposed to asking short, concise, but really important questions.

DURBIN: That's true.

But most good questioning requires some follow-up. If I have five minutes to work with, I better be darn lucky with that first question and the follow-up to get to something relevant.

BLITZER: But can't the chairman of these two committees change the rules and decide that one or two members would have 20 or 30 minutes to do it...

DURBIN: Oh, sure.

BLITZER: ... as opposed to five minutes for individual members, and then have some staffers who are really knowledgeable on all the specifics go in detail and ask not only the questions, but the follow- ups?

DURBIN: That's quite possible.

[18:15:00]

I don't know Chairman Nadler is going to do at the House Judiciary Committee.

My only point is, two hours of testimony Judiciary, two hours Intel, one hour to a side, Democrats and Republicans, is a not a lot to work with. I would not anticipate that there be any blockbuster revelations in that brief period of time.

BLITZER: Yes, I suspect you're probably right.

Does the Justice Department, Senator, have standing to try and block the testimony of two of Mueller's top deputies?

DURBIN: I don't think so. And, quite honestly, we know that the position of the administration

is to obstruct and stop every chance they have in terms of people coming forward and testifying as to what they have seen, heard or participated in. That's just their standard approach to everything.

It's a bare-knuckles fight to bring these administration witnesses before the Congress, but I think the American people expect it. They expect that our branch of government will hold the executive branch accountable. And Donald Trump's no exception.

BLITZER: At an election security briefing up on Capitol Hill today, top officials wouldn't say whether President Trump had actually received a full-scale briefing on 2020 election security.

Does that concern you?

DURBIN: I can tell you the most important part of that was that the key agencies, intelligence and law enforcement agencies, are on the case. They are not taking 2020 for granted. They're moving in the right direction.

They have had some success already when it comes to the 2018 election and thwarting efforts to intervene there. I think that's a good indication that they're taking 2020 seriously.

We ought to stay on top of it, though. We got to work with election authorities all across the United States. My state of Illinois state board of elections was one of the first hacked by the Russians back in the 2016 election cycle.

So we don't assume a thing. We're going to be ready for the fight. And we should be.

BLITZER: Did you go to that briefing today?

DURBIN: I did.

BLITZER: And did you learn something?

DURBIN: I did.

I thought there were several things that were brought out that were very reassuring. And, as I said, the top leaders of these agencies were there making the commitment that they want to move forward. I think we ought to take election security very seriously in this country.

The integrity of our elections is critical to a democracy. And when it comes to these foreign countries intervening, they ought to know that the United States is not going to take it sitting down.

BLITZER: That's very important, indeed.

Senator Durbin, thanks so much for joining us.

DURBIN: Thanks, Wolf.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source