CNN "Wolf" - Transcript: Lawsuits Against President Trump

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

BLITZER: Let's bring in Democratic Congressman Jerry Nadler of New York. He's joining us from Capitol Hill.

Congressman, a lot to discuss right now, but let's start with those lawsuits by these three women against President Trump. A judge says "The Apprentice" contestant, Summer Zervos, can go forward with her defamation case against the president. Do you agree with letting a civil case proceed against a sitting president of the United States? And what are the legal and political implications?

REP. JERRY NADLER (D), NEW YORK: Well, yes, I do agree that a civil case can proceed against the president. And I think that was established in the Paula Jones case under President Clinton. And I think it's settled law. And it means that the president is not above the law.

I am more concerned at this point, however, about the threats that the president is posing to the investigation, to the Mueller investigation, on the collusion with the Russians and interfering in our election campaign last year and obstruction of justice. And I'm very much afraid that in the next two weeks, when Congress is out of session, we may see, given the heightening storm of tweets and other warnings from the president, we might see the president attempt to further obstruction of justice by interfering with the investigation especially.

And here people haven't really focused on this. If we were to fire Sessions, not Mueller, if he were to fire Sessions and bring in somebody else who would do what he wants, Sessions is recused from the investigation. But a new person wouldn't be. And this new person, following the instructions from the president, could shut down the investigation, or without the public being aware of it, throttle the investigation by cutting its budget by telling the special prosecutor, don't look at this, don't look at that. And, in effect, he could control the investigation if Sessions were removed. And that is a great danger that we have to be aware of, in addition to the danger of Mueller being removed.

BLITZER: Republican Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona is raising the specter of possible impeachment in a tweet warning the president not to fire Robert Mueller, the special counsel. He tweeted this. We are begging the president not to fire the special counsel. Don't create a constitutional crisis. Congress cannot preempt such a firing. Our only constitutional remedy is after the fact through impeachment. No one wants that outcome, Mr. President. Please don't go there.

[13:10:24] As you know, congressman, the White House says there's no discussion about firing Mueller at all. Do you believe that?

NADLER: I never believe anything this White House says because they've repeatedly lied. A few weeks ago there was no discussion of firing Tillerson, and suddenly Tillerson was fired. So, who knows.

But I think the danger is not only of -- I mean, yes, Senator Flake is right, this would be a terrible obstruction of justice and a terrible red line crossed if Mueller were to be fired. But I would say the same thing about Sessions. And perhaps the greatest danger is that he fires Sessions, brings in some lackey who will do what the president tells him to do, and that person could either fire Mueller or could control the investigation, shut it down for all practical purposes, without the public even knowing about it, by cutting the budget, by telling them don't look at this, don't look at that, and by cutting the resources. That is the danger equally or perhaps even greater than firing Mueller.

BLITZER: Let's talk about the fury over at the White House right now over the warning cautioning President Trump not to congratulate Vladimir Putin on his re-election. Sources describe the president right now as furious that that warning, which he ignored or didn't -- never received, for whatever, was leaked to the news media.

Here's what Florida Senator Marco Rubio said today about the call and the leak. Listen to this.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

NADLER: No. I mean there may or may not be someone that he appointed who is trying to undermine him, and there may be somebody who really thinks that it's in the public interest that the public knows that he was warned against kowtowing to Putin.

I mean this is just another instance of the great question which has been hanging around since before he was inaugurated. Why is this president apparently so beholden to Putin? He's nasty to other foreign leaders. He's nasty to other people. But to -- about Putin, who's a foreign dictator, who just apparently committed murder in Great Britain, one of our allies, he cannot say a cross word and he insists on congratulating him for a sham election. This is the great question, what does Putin have over him?

BLITZER: Well, what do you suspect the answer is?

NADLER: I don't know what Putin has over him. I certainly think that's one of the things that I hope the investigation will find out. What, if anything, and, I mean, I don't know, I suspect that there's something over him. But what, if anything, does Putin have over him? Why is he so subservient to Putin and to no one else. That's the great question in the room. I certainly hope the investigations going on now will give us some answers to that.

BLITZER: The congratulatory phone call the president made with Vladimir Putin was condemned by a whole bunch of lawmakers, Democrats and Republicans. Listen to Senator John McCain. He said, and I'm quoting Senator McCain right now, an American president does not lead the free world by congratulating dictators on winning sham elections.

What's your reaction to that phone conversation the president had with Putin?

NADLER: I think Senator McCain said it exactly right, you don't -- a leader of the free world, a leader of the United States should not congratulate a dictator for a sham election, especially a dictator who was -- tried to interfere and subvert our election, especially a dictator who apparently just -- who's credibly accused by the British government and ally of committing murder on British soil. You should not be congratulating such people. You should be condemning them.

BLITZER: You know, the president's supporters point out that President Obama, back in 2012, congratulated Putin on his election then. What was different then as opposed to now?

NADLER: Well, I don't know. And I don't recall whether -- what Obama said at the time. But what's really important is that this is a president, meaning Putin, who just apparently ordered a murder on British soil, who has committed aggression that we're -- in the Crimea and in Ukraine that we're opposing supposedly through sanctions, and who just attempted to subvert the American election. Certainly he hadn't done that in 2012.

BLITZER: Congressman Jerry Nadler, thanks for joining us.

NADLER: Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source