馃攳
Rep. Raskin On Whether DOJ Should Pursue Trump: 'We Trust The Attorney General' - YouTube
Channel: MSNBC
[0]
i believe we have jamie raskin now a
[2]
member of the select committee as well
[4]
investigating january 6. congressman
[6]
thank you very much for joining us um it
[9]
felt like today and with the first
[11]
hearing as well you're putting donald
[12]
trump front and center of this whole um
[16]
this whole scheme i'll put it that way
[19]
it would be surprising to some people
[21]
that you guys weren't trying to put
[22]
pressure on the doj with this
[27]
well we're following the facts and
[28]
there's no way of understanding anything
[30]
that happened without putting donald
[32]
trump at the center of it i mean uh this
[34]
would have ended like any other
[36]
presidential election had he not been
[38]
hell-bent on
[39]
overturning joe biden's lawful majority
[41]
in the electoral college
[43]
every other presidential election we've
[45]
seen except for a couple where they've
[47]
been genuinely close or nobody got a
[49]
majority in electoral college but in
[51]
general someone wins someone loses
[53]
someone concedes and it's over
[56]
here donald trump despite being told by
[58]
the attorney general of the united
[60]
states his uh campaign lawyers his
[63]
campaign advisors that it was over that
[65]
there was no merit to any of these
[67]
claims of electoral fraud corruption
[69]
decided to keep going keep raising money
[71]
on the false assertions of uh a stolen
[76]
election and then to drive it all the
[77]
way up to january 6th where everyone
[80]
knows the
[81]
disaster that took place with
[83]
insurrectionary mob violence leveled
[85]
against congress in a final attempt to
[88]
force uh vice president pence to step
[91]
outside of his constitutional role and
[93]
to try to throw the whole thing into a
[94]
contingent election or just have it
[96]
declared for donald trump congressman
[98]
raskin congressman i want to ask you as
[101]
a foot on your hat of law professor
[103]
uh if you will so we heard testimony
[106]
today on video from attorney general
[109]
bill barr that a month after the
[111]
election more than a month after the
[112]
election in december he was telling the
[114]
president as were all the other legal
[116]
advisers white house attorneys campaign
[119]
advisors that there was no fraud in
[123]
michigan there was no fraud in arizona
[125]
there was no fought in pennsylvania
[126]
there was no fraud in georgia that all
[128]
of these conspiracies were totally wrong
[131]
no evidence at all and the president was
[134]
getting angry and angrier he had been
[136]
warned of course that the vote on
[138]
election day would be misleading always
[140]
has been but he ignored all of that on
[143]
election night the day after the days
[145]
after so
[147]
is this
[148]
that he was disconnected from reality
[151]
or is this willful denial
[154]
which is it legally when looking at
[156]
whether the president was responsible
[158]
for wittingly denying and perpetuating
[161]
the conspiracies the big lie
[164]
well that's a question of fact that you
[165]
just proposed um you know was he
[168]
detached from reality
[170]
as attorney general barr suggested
[173]
someone would have to be to continue to
[175]
believe all of these bogus claims
[178]
or was it a willful suppression and
[180]
denial of the truth in order to keep
[182]
making money and to uh hold out the
[185]
possibility he might somehow be able to
[188]
pull victory from the jaws of defeat you
[191]
know and
[192]
whenever he was raised before during his
[195]
term or even after
[197]
january 6 that the president was somehow
[201]
deranged that he
[203]
couldn't be trusted to be running the
[206]
executive branch of the government
[208]
generally his supporters and those in
[210]
the gop said no we're not going to
[212]
invoke the 25th amendment the house of
[214]
representatives voted to ask
[218]
the vice president and the cabinet to
[220]
invoke the 25th amendment but even vice
[222]
president pence said no he wouldn't do
[225]
that at that point so
[226]
at this point we just have to assume he
[228]
is a rational actor he is responsible
[231]
for all of his actions the way every
[233]
other president in history the united
[235]
states is responsible for them so my
[237]
answer your question is it was a big lie
[240]
he told the big lie he knew it was a big
[242]
lie and he was perfectly aware from all
[245]
of his advisers and all of his lawyers
[247]
that there was no truth to it
[249]
congressman raskin it's hallie jackson
[250]
we're so grateful to you to be here with
[252]
us today if you'll indulge me i just
[253]
have two fairly cut and dry yes or no
[256]
questions for you and then i'd ask you
[257]
to elaborate on them first do you
[259]
believe that the department of justice
[261]
just straight up should pursue some sort
[262]
of criminal investigation of donald
[264]
trump related to what he did on january
[265]
6.
[268]
well look one of the
[270]
conventions and norms of our political
[273]
system that donald trump destroyed was
[276]
the idea that the political branches
[278]
should not be dictating to the
[280]
department of justice who they prosecute
[282]
and who they don't prosecute and i know
[283]
everybody got used to waking up and
[285]
donald trump telling william barr
[288]
whoever else was attorney general at the
[289]
time you must prosecute so and so or
[291]
leave so and so alone he's a good guy we
[294]
just don't want to do that we want to
[296]
put all the evidence out there all the
[298]
facts out there but you know we trust
[300]
the professionals in the department of
[302]
justice we trust the attorney general to
[304]
arrive at the proper conclusions and our
[306]
job is to assemble all of the facts
[309]
because we're not just an individual
[312]
criminal accountability and
[313]
responsibility we're also interested in
[315]
the country and the congress responding
[318]
to these events
[319]
by fortifying our democratic
[321]
institutions so the right to vote is
[323]
respected and not put in danger and
[326]
elections have integrity and are not
[328]
pulled over by presidents hell-bent on
[331]
victory despite what the people have
[333]
said i hear what you're talking about um
[334]
i hear what you're saying you also you
[336]
know i ask you this as somebody who is
[339]
well-versed and well-steeped in the
[340]
facts of the matter here in your
[342]
personal opinion and let me ask you
[343]
about something else that we heard today
[344]
which was the laying out as
[345]
congresswoman lofgren put it of the big
[347]
the big lie with the big rip-off right
[349]
and the financial piece of this do you
[351]
believe that donald trump could be
[353]
criminally culpable for potential
[354]
financial wrongdoing do you believe that
[356]
this committee has found enough evidence
[358]
to show that
[361]
well um
[363]
again that's not our job to enter into
[366]
you know the statutory elements of mail
[368]
fraud uh prosecutions or
[372]
federal election campaign act um you
[374]
know that is not what our principal
[376]
purpose is here um i think from a common
[380]
sense perspective which is what we're
[381]
interested in uh there's no doubt that
[385]
donald trump was pulling the wool over
[387]
the eyes of his supporters when he led
[389]
them to believe that he'd actually won
[391]
the election when he had lost it and it
[393]
was clear that he lost it but it was an
[395]
effective uh fundraising tactic i'll
[398]
just say that and i have no problem
[399]
saying that and i agree with my
[402]
colleague uh ms lofgren that from the
[404]
standpoint of people sending in money
[408]
um
[409]
that that looked that felt like a
[411]
rip-off at least in the moral sense
[413]
[Music]
[433]
you
Most Recent Videos:
You can go back to the homepage right here: Homepage