CNN "State of the Union" - Transcript: Interview With New York Congressman Jerrold Nadler

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

TAPPER: Joining me now is the likely new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Democratic Congressman Jerry Nadler of New York.

Mr. Chairman, in all likelihood, thanks so much for joining us.

You have been saying that, under the Republicans, there's been no congressional oversight of the Trump administration. Now that you're expected to be the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, what are the first three things that you want to hold hearings on?

NADLER: Well, the very first thing, obviously, is to protect the Mueller investigation.

The president's dismissal of Attorney General Sessions, and his appointment of Whitaker, who is a complete political lackey, is a real threat to the integrity of that investigation. That investigation is of utmost importance in making sure that we adhere to the rule of law and that the administration is held accountable.

And we will certainly hold hearings on that. Our very first witness on -- after January 3, we will subpoena Mr. -- or we will summon, if necessary, subpoena Mr. Whitaker.

TAPPER: And what will you ask Mr. Whitaker?

NADLER: Well, the questions we will ask him will be about his expressed hostility to the investigation, and how he can possibly supervise it, when he's expressed the -- when he's come out and said that the investigation is invalid, that there was -- that, contrary to the findings of every intelligence agency, there was no Russian interference in our election, and when he has expressed ridiculous legal opinions that go against the foundations of American law.

He's totally unqualified. And his only qualification seems to be that he wants to be -- that the president wants him to be the hatchet man to destroy the Mueller investigation.

TAPPER: Well, be that as it may -- and you have called Whitaker's appointment illegal -- the law in this case -- and it's the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 -- authorized the president to replace the attorney general, in this case Jeff Sessions, with any senior official who has been serving in the same department for at least 90 days, as long as they're -- quote -- "acting capacity" for fewer than 210 days.

NADLER: Well, I believe...

TAPPER: Regardless of your opinion of Mr. Whitaker, he meets those requirements.

NADLER: Well, I don't think so.

There's very good constitutional law that, regardless of the Vacancy Act, you cannot have an attorney general or, for that matter, an acting attorney general who hasn't been confirmed by the Senate, and that anything he does is invalid.

But that may very well be tested in court. But, meanwhile, we have to ask the attorney -- the claimed attorney general for assurances that he's not going to interfere with the -- with the investigation by Mueller, because the rule of law must be maintained. And no official can be above the rule of law, not the president.

[09:35:00]

And that is -- and that is key. There's been -- the Republicans in Congress have refused to have any checks to perform our constitutional duty, being a check and balance on the president.

We will do that. And this is the first step in doing that. The president may think that he is above the law. He may think that he will not be held accountable, but he will be.

TAPPER: Do you plan to take any action to remove President Trump from office? Are you going to attempt impeachment?

"The New York Times" reported you pitched yourself to your Democratic colleagues for the top spot on Judiciary...

NADLER: No, no, no, no.

TAPPER: ... as -- quote -- "the strongest member to lead a potential impeachment."

NADLER: Well, the key word is potential, if it comes up.

We -- no. We're -- impeachment is a question that will come up down the road, maybe, depending on the findings of the Mueller administration and of other investigations. We're far from that right now.

TAPPER: You were vocally opposed to the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton, of course, in 1998. You called them a partisan coup d'etat.

You said that any potential impeachment of President Trump -- quote -- "must not be partisan."

NADLER: That is correct.

TAPPER: According to CNN's exit polls from Tuesday, 77 percent of Democrats support impeaching President Trump, 5 percent of Republicans.

There is a real partisan divide on this issue of impeachment. Does that concern you?

NADLER: Not really, because, as I said, we're far from that.

If we get to the question of impeachment, then one of the tests should be -- and I have said this repeatedly -- is the evidence so strong of misdeeds so terrible that you really believe at the beginning of the process that, by the end of the process, when all this is laid out publicly, a very large fraction of the people who voted for the president will grudgingly acknowledge to themselves and to others that you had no choice but to impeach the president?

That's a test, because you don't want the country torn apart, in the sense that half the country says for the next 30 years, we won the election, you stole it.

So, one question before you do an impeachment is, do you think that the evidence of such terrible deeds is so strong that a large portion of the opposition vote base, of the president's vote base, will be convinced by the end of the process?

TAPPER: And you're not there yet? You don't see anything...

NADLER: Oh, we're far from...

TAPPER: OK.

NADLER: Well, I see a lot of potentials, but we don't know.

That's why we're waiting to see what the special counsel finds. We're waiting to see what a fair investigation -- the Republicans on the Intelligence Committee and the Judiciary Committee made sure there was no fair investigation in Congress. There will be now. And we will see what that comes up with, what the special prosecutor, special counsel's office comes up with.

And we will then have to make judgments. I certainly hope that we will not find the necessity for an impeachment. But you can't rule that out.

TAPPER: A conservative writer overheard you on the train from New York to D.C. on Wednesday. You were on your phone.

And according to her, you were detailing a plan to impeach recently confirmed Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh for alleged perjury.

NADLER: She was not telling the truth. And I'm not going to comment on a private conversation with a friend.

TAPPER: It's not true...

NADLER: That was incorrect. No.

TAPPER: You have no intentions of trying to or even discussing potentially impeaching Justice Kavanaugh for perjury?

NADLER: No.

The only thing that we -- what I think we do have to -- no, no. What I think we do have to do is -- one of the things that the committee has to do is to investigate the question of the FBI not doing a proper investigation, so -- because of White House interference, so that we can do whatever is necessary to make sure that, in the future, investigations are adequate. TAPPER: But you did promise to investigate Kavanaugh if the Democrats gained control of the House, right?

NADLER: No, I said that we would look into the question I just mentioned.

TAPPER: OK, but no commitment to investigate him.

All right, Congressman Jerry Nadler, one last question for you. "The Wall Street Journal" reported on Friday that President Trump was -- quote -- "involved in or briefed on nearly every step of hush money payments made to women on his behalf, women with whom he allegedly had affairs. Prosecutors have evidence of the president's participation," "The Journal" reported.

If the president is found to have been involved in campaign finance violations that are potentially criminal, is that an impeachable offense?

NADLER: That might very well be an impeachable offense.

And the question would be, A, can you prove -- well, it may be an impeachable offense, if it goes to the question of the president procuring his office through corrupt means. And that could be impeachable. And you would have to see whether a -- how good the proof of that is and, secondly, what else there is, because the fact that an impeachable offense is committed -- has been committed does not mean necessarily there ought to be an impeachment.

[09:40:09]

That depends on whether the situation is serious enough that it makes sense to do an impeachment to defend the system of government and the system of democracy.

And so, yes, that would be a factor that would go into any such judgment.

TAPPER: All right, soon-to-be-incoming Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Congressman Jerry Nadler, Democrat of New York, thank you so much for your time this morning.

NADLER: Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source