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

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

TAPPER: It is difficult to imagine how the president or any of his supporters could be -- quote -- "very happy" with these new legal filings from Robert Mueller and federal prosecutors.

For the first time, prosecutors implicated President Trump in two crimes, saying that he directed Michael Cohen to make these hush money payments to two women in order to impact the 2016 presidential election.

The filings also offer new insights into the depth of the special counsel's Russia investigation, including previously unknown attempts by the Russians to infiltrate the Trump campaign during 2016 and reveal that both Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen have been in touch with people closely connected to the White House as recently as this year.

Let's go straight to the incoming chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Congressman Jerry Nadler of New York, soon to be Mr. Chairman.

Thanks for joining us. We appreciate it.

NADLER: Thank you.

TAPPER: I want to read a key line from the Southern District of New York filing from Friday.

It says -- quote -- "With respect to both payments, Cohen acted with the intent to influence the 2016 presidential election in particular. And, as Cohen himself has now admitted, with respect to both payments, he acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual 1."

Individual 1, of course, is President Trump.

So, that's crystal clear. Federal prosecutors are saying that the president ordered Michael Cohen to commit two federal campaign finance felonies. In your view, does that rise to the level of an impeachable offense?

NADLER: Well, I think what these indictments and filings show is that the president was at the center of a massive fraud -- several massive frauds against the American people.

And it's now our job, the job of the Justice Department, the special prosecutor -- the special counsel, and the Congress to get to the bottom of this, to find out exactly what was going on, to find out the extent of the president's involvement, to find out basically what the president knew and when did he know it, so that we can then hold him accountable.

TAPPER: If it is proven that the president directed or coordinated with Cohen to commit these felonies, if it's proven -- and I understand it has not yet been -- it's been alleged by the prosecutors, but has not been proven.

If it's proven, is -- are those impeachable offenses?

NADLER: Well, they would be impeachable offenses.

Whether they are important enough to justify an impeachment is a different question. But, certainly, they would be impeachable offenses, because, even though they were committed before the president became president, they were committed in the service of fraudulently obtaining the office. That would be the -- that would be an impeachable offense.

But the fact of the matter is that what we see from these indictments and charging statements is a much broader conspiracy against the American people involving these payments, involving an attempt to influence the campaign improperly, with improper payments involving the Russians trying to get influence in the campaign, involving the president lying for an entire year about his ongoing business arrangements, business dealings with the Russians, involving obstruction of justice.

[09:05:30]

All of these have to be looked at very seriously by the Congress, by the special counsel, and by the Justice Department and to see what actions we should then take.

And what is clear also is that the Republican Congress absolutely tried to shield the president. The new Congress will not try to shield the president. We will try to get to the bottom of this, in order to serve the American people and to stop this massive conspiracy -- this massive fraud on the American people. TAPPER: Can you explain what you mean when you differentiate between,

maybe these are -- if it's proven, it's impeachable offenses, but that does not necessarily mean that the offenses themselves are important enough to actually begin proceedings of impeachment?

There seems to be a difference there, in your view. Why?

NADLER: It's not necessarily a difference.

But it's simply two different considerations. You don't necessarily launch an impeachment against the president because he committed an impeachable offense. There are several things you have to look at.

One, were there impeachable offenses committed, how many, et cetera? And, secondly, how important were they? Do they rise to the gravity where you should undertake an impeachment?

An impeachment is an attempt to, in effect, overturn or change the result of the last election. And you should do it only for very serious situations. So, that's always the question.

TAPPER: But you just said that the president seems to be in the middle -- seems to have been in the middle of a massive fraud against the American people.

That doesn't sound like somebody who thinks that these alleged crimes don't rise to the level of needing impeachment.

NADLER: Oh, I didn't -- I didn't say they don't rise -- I said we have to get to the bottom of all of this.

We have to find out exactly what was going on. We have to look at these crimes, and what did the president know and when did he know about these crimes? You have to look at the Russian interference with the campaign, and what did the president know about that, and to what extent did he cooperate with that, if he did?

We have to look at his business dealings and his lying about that. We have to look at the fact that he surrounded himself with crooks. His campaign manager, his deputy campaign manager, his national security adviser, all of them, and a host, a bunch of other people, they all were meeting with the Russians. They all expressed interest in meeting again.

None of them reported it to the proper authorities. They have all been indicted for one crime or another. The president invent -- created his own swamp and brought it to the White House. These are all very serious things.

And we have to get to the bottom of this, find out what all the facts are, we and the special counsel, and then make decisions.

TAPPER: You have said you're considering legislation that would pause the statutes of limitations for any crimes a president might commit while he's in office. The current Justice Department guidelines are that a sitting president, although they're in dispute, but whether or not they say -- suggesting that a current president cannot be indicted.

Do you think a current president cannot be indicted? And, if so, do you think President Trump should then be susceptible to be indicted after he leaves the White House?

NADLER: Number one, I disagree with the Office of Special Counsel and the Department of Justice. There's nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a president from being indicted.

And I think it's very important that the -- we originated, this country originated in a rebellion against the English king. We didn't -- we did not seek to create another king. Nobody, not the president, not anybody else, can be above the law.

And there's no reason to think that the president should not be indicted. The reason given by the Office of Legal Counsel is that it would take up too much of his time, he couldn't do his job.

But, you know, the Constitution specifically allows an impeachment. That certainly takes up a lot of time for the president. So, I don't agree that a president can't be indicted.

But insofar as the Justice Department refuses to indict a president, no matter what the evidence is of whatever crimes, because they think he can't be indicted, we should certainly hold the statute of limitations, so that, if he does something before he's president or while he's president that should be indicted, and the Department of Justice will not consider inviting him, whatever the facts, while he's president, he can be indicted afterwards.

TAPPER: But you said...

NADLER: Because nobody may be above the law.

TAPPER: You said on Friday you're going to end the investigation into whether bias influenced FBI decisions during the 2016 election. You have called it a waste of time. You have called it nonsense.

There are a lot of people on both sides of the aisle who were alarmed by the texts between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok of the FBI at the time, by some of the actions from then Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, by some of the actions by FBI Director James Comey before and during the 2016 election.

Are you not concerned at all that, by ending that investigation, you will be shirking the congressional oversight responsibility over the Justice Department and the FBI?

[09:10:08]

NADLER: No, I think that that was thoroughly investigated by the inspector general, who found that -- that while a couple -- some of the agents inside the FBI had their personal opinions about candidate Trump, which they're entitled to, he -- the inspector general, in his very thorough report, found that they -- that those opinions did not in any way influence the actions of the department.

The department, remember, is prohibited by law from asking after the political opinions of anybody they hire. There are plenty of people who were supporting Trump and the FBI and the Department of Justice, plenty of people who didn't like him. That's their personal opinion.

And the fact that one of them said it to another on the -- is OK, as long as they didn't bring any bias to any of the decisions. And the inspector general found that they did not.

And if the -- and this has been thoroughly investigated. And, frankly, it's not a question of ending the investigations. There's nothing left to investigate. It has been done several times.

TAPPER: I think -- just in point of clarity, I think the inspector general said that about the investigations of Hillary Clinton's e-mail server through the summer of 2016.

But I don't think that they reached the same conclusion necessarily about decisions made after that.

NADLER: He said -- he said there was -- for the second one, he said there was no evidence that he saw.

TAPPER: All right.

Soon-to-be Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Jerrold Nadler of New York, thank you so much, sir. We appreciate your time.

NADLER: Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source