MSNBC "The Rachel Maddow Show" - Transcript: Interview with Rep. Jerrold Nadler

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

VELSHI: Over the weekend, leading Democrats continue to raise the alarm  about the president`s new acting attorney general. Matthew Whitaker comes  to the job of chief law enforcement officer of the United States with a  long record of criticizing the special counsel investigation, saying there  was no collusion and the investigation ought to be starved of financial  resources. Now, Whitaker has taken the job of overseeing the  investigation, and he is fighting back against accusations that he`s going  to try to rein in or undermine the probe.

"Bloomberg News" reports the acting attorney general has told associates  that the Justice Department under his new leadership will not cut the  budget for Mueller`s investigation, even though the only place that  suggestion came from was him in this interview. He specifically put that  idea out there as an option last year on TV, available for everyone to see.  This is not hard journalistic work for us. He also continued to field  questions about whether his ability to be acting attorney general was  constitutional.

Today, the city of San Francisco threatened court action over the  appointment, noting that the city currently has four cases proceeding  against the Department of Justice, that name fired Attorney General Jeff  Sessions as the defendant. San Francisco City attorney is asking the  Justice Department to provide the legal justification behind elevating  Whitaker to lead the Justice Department. Rod Rosenstein would have been  the natural choice, by the way. Otherwise, the city said it may be forced  to ask a judge for a legal rationale.
Now, "The Wall Street Journal" reports late tonight that the Justice  Department is expected to publish a legal opinion supporting Whitaker`s  appointment. That legal opinion is expected to come as early as tomorrow.  Meanwhile, reports that Whitaker will not recuse himself from overseeing  the Mueller investigation despite his well-documented history of making  statements questioning its legitimacy have Democrats pursuing new avenues  of inquiry.

Whitaker has declared that he is, quote, committed to leading a fair  department with the highest ethical standards. Democrats are not taking  that at face value. Today, it emerged that top Democratic leaders,  including one with whom I`m to be speak in the House and the Senate have  sent a letter to Lee Loftus. This is Lee Loftus. He`s the top ethics  official at the Department of Justice demanding to know immediately what if  any advice he has given Whitaker regarding recusal.

Quote: We request that you immediately notify us in writing regarding  whether you or any other ethics officials at the Justice Department have  advised Mr. Whitaker to recuse from supervision of the special counsel  investigation and the basis for that recommendation. It continues: We also  request that you provide us all ethics guidance the department has provided  to Mr. Whitaker to date.

The letter was signed by seven top Democrats, including the incoming chair  of the House Judiciary Committee, New York Democrat Jerry Nadler.

Empowered by the majority Democrats won last week, Congressman Nadler says  he will summon Whitaker as the very first witness before his committee when  Democrats take charge in January.

Joining me now, Congressman Jerry Nadler, the top Democrat on the House  Judiciary Committee.
Congressman, good to have you here. Thank you.

REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY), RANKING MEMBER, JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Good to be  here.

VELSHI: You got a response to your letter to Lee Loftus? NADLER: No, we have not gotten a letter yet and we don`t know when we`ll get one. I mean, it is clear I think that the very reason that he was appointed was to be a hatchet person on the investigation. He ought to recuse himself because he has prejudged the issue. He said there was no Russian involvement.

VELSHI: He has been very specific. He said there is no collusion, he  doesn`t think this is a legitimate line of inquiry and had suggested on  television in that CNN interview that you just could starve the Mueller  investigation.

NADLER: He suggested a number of ways that you could do that, but he`s  prejudged the issue, which means he shouldn`t be there, but we know why he  was appointed, because the only reason, and the president was very clear  about this, the only beef he had with Attorney General Sessions was that he  did not recuse himself. He did not act as the president`s personal defense  attorney.

So, obviously, when he appointed someone, he appointed someone he expected  not to recuse himself. Now, he has, under normal ethical guidelines, he  must recuse himself. That`s why we wrote this letter to the chief ethics  person. You know, this is just another -- the obvious reason for this  appointment was to crack down and control the Mueller investigation. This  is part of a pattern of interference by the president with the  investigation.

The president thinks he is above the law and can get away with it. And  we`re going do have to show him he is not above the law and we have to  protect the -- our first priority is to protect the integrity of the  investigation because we are dependent on that investigation to protect the  integrity of our elections from foreign interference.

VELSHI: So, perhaps in response to the letter that you and seven other  legislators sent or perhaps in response to our inquiries, the Department of  Justice has given us a statement tonight, and it says Acting Attorney  General Matt Whitaker is fully committed to following all appropriate  processes and procedures a the Department of Justice, including consulting  with senior ethics officials on his oversight responsibilities and matters  that may warrant recusal, which is interesting. It`s different than a  straight-out denial that there is any issue.

NADLER: Well, I hope that`s true. I have my reasons to doubt it, which I  stated a moment ago, but we`ll see. And we`ll be interested in seeing what  the Justice Department says.

VELSHI: I mean, given everything that`s happened and given how these  Ethics Departments tend to be weakened under this administration, do you  have any faith that Matthew Whitaker will, A, meet with these ethics  officials and, B, that they`ll tell him anything useful, and C, that he  might listen?

NADLER: I`m very skeptical of all of that because of the obvious reason,  he is only useful to the president in so far --

VELSHI: He doesn`t recuse himself.

NADLER: He doesn`t recuse himself and acts to squelch the investigation.  That`s why he was appointed, it`s part of a pattern of interference by the  president with the investigation. You know, the normal process of having  an acting attorney general would have been to go to the deputy Attorney  General Rod Rosenstein, the solicitor general, both have been confirmed by  the Senate to their positions.

But instead, they went out of the normal line to take this guy who`s got no  apparent qualifications, lots of conflicts of interest, and, again, the  reason is transparent.

VELSHI: OK. So, you`re going to get in and you`re going to take over as  chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and you grog to invite or  subpoena Matt Whitaker?

NADLER: We`ll, first, invite him. If he declines the invitation then  we`ll subpoena him.

VELSHI: Do you think he`ll respect that subpoena?

NADLER: Well, I would hope so. I would hope that he will respect the  subpoena and not fight it. He could delay it somewhat. But ultimately, he  has to respect the subpoena.

VELSHI: All right.

NADLER: The House has to enforce the subpoenas.

VELSHI: What do you want to ask him?

NADLER: Well, we`ll ask him the obvious questions. Given your stated  views, given the fact that you said that you prejudged the issue, that  there was no investigation -- there was Russian interference with the  election, which is ridiculous, how can you supervise the investigation?  And more to the point, what will you do? Will you, when -- if and when  Mueller gives the report, will you make that report public? Will you give  it Congress?

VELSHI: Because he could put it in a drawer.

NADLER: He could put it in a drawer. Will you make that report available  to Congress? Will you veto or tell Mueller he cannot go down any  particular investigation line? Will you say he can`t indict any particular  person, or do you think that he should be given the freedom to take the  investigation where it leads as he has had that freedom under Rosenstein`s  supervision and as any investigation should.

VELSHI: Congressman Nadler, good to see you. Thank you, sir.

NADLER: You`re quite welcome.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source