mythical ukrainian intervention. so we definitely need to get all the evidence we can related to that. but a lot of the things that you were mentioning goes to other crimes and other offenses against the united states. you know, parnas and fruman have already been indicted for campaign finance violations. yes, it looks like there s a broadening investigation into money laundering, representing foreign governments without registering, funneling foreign money into our elections and so on. we re interested in that right now to the extent that it implicates the president. if it doesn t, then i think that will have to be dealt with in other criminal investigations or later on by us. i guess the question is how do you find that out? one of the things that s happened is we had weeks of depositions and then followed by public hearings. and in defiance of word from the white house, people came and testified, some people turned over documents. but the white house is still holding on to documen
you re presuming such a thing exists. well, there s two possibilities. one is trump s taxes, which could show that he s a tax cheat. and i would think that might move a few republicans off the dime. and the other is will this opinion get john bolton in to testify before congress. there s also the fact that i mean there s an amazing moment in here just in terms of the way this department of justice has lawyered on behalf of the president. at one point the department of justice says actually, you don t even have the jurisdiction to resolve this fight between the article 1 and article 2 branches. she writes back to say you guys have three courts you have three cases before the docket that argues we do have this jurisdiction. she points out how hypocritical is probably the nicest word i can use to describe what doj is doing. and it s think about that. our department of justice is taking frivolous they re making frivolous arguments. they are our lawyers making
elite dare i say resume. were you surprised to see him say that? i was astonished and appalled. and to my republican colleagues, i would say you do know better. and if you don t, you should just read the report done by our intelligence committee controlled by republicans. on the senate side. on the senate side, which says that the russians interfered. it affirms unanimous conclusion of the intelligence community and the mueller report in saying it was the russians, not ukraine. here s what i think is unnerving about what i feel like i m beginning to see. the president makes these two asks on the phone call. one is this 9/11 truther level insanity about the server. the other is go get dirt on the bidens. republicans in the senate have the option to say he shouldn t have done those things and those are bad but we don t think you should impeach them for it. instead it seems that some of them are not just that they were
was having conversations directly with rudy giuliani about a month before the u.s. ambassador to ukraine, marie yovanovitch, was suddenly removed from her post. remember two of the men who worked with guiliani to smear the ambassador have been indicted, in part for their role in that scheme. one of them, lev parnas, is just he s just out there begging to cooperate at this point. cnn reported friday night that his lawyer says parnas is willing to tell congress that the top republican on the house intelligence committee, the guy sitting next to adam schiff, devin nunes, that devin nunes met with a shady ukrainian prosecutor, named viktor shokin, in vienna last december. nunes shoeld shokin of the urgent need to launch investigations into burisma, joe biden and hunter biden and any purported ukrainian interference in the 2016 election.
photographs provided by to the committee by lev parnas. and the material submitted to the committee includes audio, video and photos that include guiliani and trump. so the house committee has audio, video and photos of the president and his lawyer from a man charged with multiple federal offenses. joining me is one of the members of congress, democratic congressman jamie raskin of maryland. first let s start with the scope question in light of all this evidence. lev parnas has said through his lawyer publicly he wants to cooperate. apparently he s turned over various evidence. there s new reporting every day. there s pages of documents inside the white house about the review. what is your thought on the balance between speed in all of this and getting everything you can possibly get? well, first, thanks for