Who?
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) — Ranking Member (ie, top Democrat), House Oversight Committee
LISTEN: Laslo & Raskin
Ask a Pol asks:
Why do you want to be the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee and not the Oversight Committee come the New Year? Is all the action gonna be in Judiciary?
Key Raskin:
“Oh, I think it's going to be all over the place,” Rep. Jamie Raskin exclusively tells Ask a Pol. “The assault on the federal workforce and the professional civil service are likely to be headquartered in Oversight, but the attack on the Justice Department, the FBI and the rule of law are going to be centered in the Judiciary Committee.”
ICYMI — Laslo’s interview first appeared in Raw Story
Caught our ear:
“They have been attacking the Department of Justice for ‘lawfare’ and for partisan ‘weaponization’ as preparation for implementing their own plans to do precisely that,” Raskin tells us. “They want to make it seem as if it's somehow normal and bipartisan. It's not. You know, you cannot find an example of — well, you really can't find an example of any president, with the potential exception of Richard Nixon, who directed the Department of Justice to engage in criminal investigations and prosecutions targeting his political foes.”
Below find a rough transcript of Ask a Pol’s interview with Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), slightly edited for clarity.
TRANSCRIPT: Rep. Jamie Raskin
SCENE: After waiting for Raskin to finish an interview with a colleague just off the floor of the US House of Representatives, Ask a Pol’s Matt Laslo then joins Raskin for his elevator ride to the underground tunnel connecting the Capitol to the House Office Buildings across the street.
Jamie Raskin: “Hey, how goes it?”
Matt Laslo: “Living the dream.”
JR: “Good.”
Raskin laughs.
JR: “Good.”
ML: “I’m kinda curious why you think the action’s going to be in Judiciary [Committee] and not Oversight [Committee] come the New Year?”
JR: “Oh, I think it's going to be all over the place. The assault on the federal workforce and the professional civil service are likely to be headquartered in Oversight, but the attack on the Justice Department, the FBI and the rule of law are going to be centered in the Judiciary Committee.”
Elevator doors open to Capitol basement.
Every bit helps! Consider chipping in to support our independent journalism —Venmo, PayPal, Cash App — or just buy us a beer!
JR: “So it's like they tell the little kids in soccer, ‘don't bunch, spread out’ — we need people everywhere, you know, defending constitutional institutions and principles.”
ML: “And especially when it comes to their focus on the FBI and DOJ, how worried are you by what you — like the rhetoric that's become metastasized almost.”
JR: “The problem is that I've not heard of any agenda other than instrumentalizing the Department of Justice and the FBI for purposes of political retaliation and revenge. You know, that's not generally advanced as a proper principle for US government.”
ML: “Yeah?”
JR: “I mean, and it's a sign of how far the discourse has shifted that this has become normalized.”
ML: “Yeah? Just, like [Trump’s FBI nominee] Kash Patel — a name that I didn't even know a couple months ago…”
JR: “Yeah.”
ML: “…like does he worry you, particularly?”
JR: “He's somebody who embodies the ethos of using the government as a partisan and political instrument for the will of the President. Again, that's a massive departure from decades of understanding that the President does not get involved in particular cases.”
ML: “Yeah?”
JR: “And we have to try to uphold that traditional understanding as much as we can.”
ML: “Does it almost feel like they're becoming the rhetoric that they decry?”
JR: “Bingo.”
ML: “Like, they’ve become the ‘lawfare’ party.”
JR: “Well, you know, they have been attacking the Department of Justice for ‘lawfare’ and for partisan ‘weaponization’ as preparation for their own — for implementing their own plans to do precisely that.”
ML: “Yeah?”
JR: “You know, they want to make it seem as if it's somehow normal and bipartisan. It's not. You know, you cannot find an example of — well, you really can't find an example of any president, with the potential exception of Richard Nixon, who directed the Department of Justice to engage in criminal investigations and prosecutions targeting his political foes.”
ML: “Yeah?”
JR: “Umm...”
ML: “Now the role in the minority, as the Ranking Member, how does that change things? I mean, it's a lot different than being in the majority…”
JR: “Yes.”
ML: “…so you’ll be playing defense, but you see it as kind of offensive defense?”
JR: “Well…”
ML:“Or defensive offense?”
JR: “Yeah. I mean, I hope that we're going to be advancing a strong vision of what it means to live in a free and democratic society, and that means playing defense against authoritarian maneuvers and violations of people's rights…”
Content posted at AskaPol.com is copyrighted. Use our original content to move the story forward. And, please, link to us.
Share this post