Intel Chief Dan Coats Stepping Down, Trump to Nominate John Ratcliffe as Replacement; Interview with Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD).
CABRERA: We have breaking news. The President just tweeted the Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats, will leave office August 15th. Trump also says he will nominate Texas Republican Congressman John Ratcliffe to be the next intel chief. Representative Ratcliffe is a member of the House Judiciary Committee and had some fiery words, Wednesday, during the Robert Mueller hearing.</s>REP. JOHN RATCLIFFE (R-TX), MINORITY MEMBER, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY: I agree with the Chairman this morning when he said Donald Trump is not above the law. He's not, but he damn sure shouldn't be below the law which is where Volume 2 of this report puts him.</s>CABRERA: I want to bring in Maryland Democrat congressman Jamie Raskin who serves on the Judiciary Committee with Congressman Ratcliffe. Congressman, thanks for being here. You were in the room. Do you feel like he was auditioning for the President there?</s>REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD), MAJORITY MEMBER, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY: Well, like a lot of his colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle, he's working very hard to impress the President and to toe the party line as Michael Cohen put it. You know, everything is meant to please the boss. And, you know, our GOP colleagues have become something like a cult of personality. You know, if the President says the North Korean dictator is our celestial savior, then he is. If we're going to nuclear war against him, then we're doing that. They've suspended critical thought.</s>CABRERA: Do you think he would make a good Director of National Intelligence?</s>RASKIN: Well, in terms of what President Trump is looking for, undoubtedly. I mean, he will essentially follow whatever the President tells him to do and justify and rationalize everything the President has done. I mean, the idea that he can read the Mueller report and say that Donald Trump has somehow been mistreated is just appalling. I mean, anybody else in the country would've been indicted for 10 episodes of -- of obstruction of justice, but President Trump got off because of the DOJ policy that a sitting president can't be indicted. That's the only reason why.</s>CABRERA: Congressman, a lot of people are saying the book was better than the movie when it came to Robert Mueller. Do you have any regrets about his testimony?</s>RASKIN: I don't. I mean, I'm amazed at the number of people who, you know, went there looking for some kind of Broadway show or something. You know, this is an attempt for us to have the Special Counsel enunciate the principal findings of the report after they were repeatedly obscured and, you know, confused by the Attorney General and by President Trump. So, I think that we told a very clear story. Vladimir Putin and the Russian government engaged in a sweeping and systemic campaign to subvert and to undermine the American presidential election. Donald Trump and his campaign welcomed them with open arms, threw open the doors and the windows. And then when it was discovered, he proceeded to obstruct justice and to interfere 10 different times to try to get people to lie, to suppress evidence, to conceal his involvement with the Russians.</s>CABRERA: But the Mueller hearing --</s>RASKIN: So, I think that came through loud and clear.</s>CABRERA: But the Mueller hearing did not convince a lot of your colleagues that it was time to move forward with an impeachment inquiry.</s>RASKIN: Oh, I think it did. I think --</s>CABRERA: Did Democrats put too much on his testimony being the linchpin on impeachment support?</s>RASKIN: Actually, I think -- somebody will get me the exact numbers now, but I think seven or eight members have come forward to say that they endorse the impeachment investigation.</s>CABRERA: Right.</s>RASKIN: Ever since Mueller came --</s>CABRERA: Our latest account is 105, so that's not -- that's not even half of your Democratic caucus in the House.</s>RASKIN: Yes, but it's the overwhelming number of people on the investigative committees and every day, more and more are joining on. It's very clear the direction in which things are moving. Look, we're in the middle of an impeachment investigation. We've been overwhelmed by evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors. It's staring everybody in the face, and so our job on the Judiciary Committee is to collect and to catalog and inventory these high crimes and misdemeanors. But also, we need to expand the scope of what we're looking at. I mean, this is a President who has been collecting money from at least 24 different foreign governments through the Trump Hotel, through the Office Tower, through the golf courses, through different business enterprises. That's in direct violation of Article 1, Section 9, of the Constitution, which says that none of us can, without the consent of Congress, collect a present, an emolument, which means a payment in office or a title from a prince, a king, or foreign government of any kind, whatever. And this President gave the game away when he paid $350,000 into the U.S. Treasury saying that that represented the profits on the foreign government business he's been doing. Of course, the constitution --</s>CABRERA: OK.</s>RASKIN: -- doesn't ban profits, it bans any payments at all.</s>CABRERA: I do want to ask you because you represent the state of Maryland about your thoughts on the President's attacks this weekend against Congressman Elijah Cummings and his district, calling it a disgusting rat and rodent-infested mess and saying no human being would want to live there. Here's how the President's Acting Chief of Staff is defending the attacks today.</s>MICK MULVANEY, ACTING WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: Mr. Cummings saying that children were sleeping or sitting in their own feces, that's just not -- that's not right. It's not accurate. When the President hears lies like that, he is going to fight back, and that's what you saw in those tweets. It has absolutely zero to do with race.</s>CABRERA: Congressman, what's your response?</s>RASKIN: Well, we've seen six, and now, I think it's seven, children who've died in the custody, in the care, of the U.S. government, which represents the people so that goes way beyond just a dirty diaper. No child had died in our custody for a decade before that, as I understand it, so we're talking about retched conditions that they have allowed to grow up in these different detention centers. I'm going to be going down there in a couple of days with a group of colleagues to inspect because we're trying to be present as much as possible to let them know that we're watching. But there is severe overcrowding, there have been outbreaks of lice, of chickenpox of influenza. Really, cruel, bitter conditions there. So, the President, apparently, didn't like the criticism and decided to lash out at Elijah Cummings. The irony here, of course, is the President of the United States, at least we all thoughts, was supposed to be president of the whole country. And so, if there are problems in Donald Trump's native New York or in Baltimore, presumably, they're all of our problems, and we should all be committed to trying to improve conditions. One way we can improve conditions is not to waste $30 billion or $40 billion on a border wall but to invest right here in America. So, we thought that his attack on Elijah Cummings was scandalous and outrageous even if predictable at this point.</s>ANA CABRERA CNN HOST: Congressman Jamie Raskin, I really appreciate your time tonight. Thank you for joining us.</s>RASKIN: And thanks so much for having me.</s>CABRERA: Coming up, new reporting about the dynamic we can expect between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders on the debate stage. But first, the debate that included this backhanded compliment.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What can you say to the voters of New Hampshire on this stage tonight who see a resume and like it but are hesitating on the likability issue, where they seem to like Barack Obama more?</s>CLINTON: Well, that hurts my feelings.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm sorry, senator. I'm sorry.</s>CLINTON: But I'll try to go on. He is very likable. I -- I agree with that. I don't think I'm that bad.</s>OBAMA: You are likable enough.</s>CLINTON: Thank you.</s>OBAMA: Hillary, no doubt.