CNN "Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees" - Transcript: Interview with Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)

Interview

COOPER: As the Senate Judiciary Committee wrapped up two days of confirmation hearings of William Barr to be the next attorney general, the ranking Democrat said she would not vote to confirm unless Barr committed to releasing the full report generated by the Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

California Senator Dianne Feinstein says that Barr's description of what he would do with the Mueller report was, as she put it, confusing. Barr told the committee he expected to release the report but only with, and I'm quoting now, "as much transparency as I can consistent with the law."

The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Jerrold Nadler says he wouldn't vote to confirm Barr if he were in the Senate and then took it a step further. I spoke with the congressman just before airtime.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: Mr. Chairman, obviously you don't have a vote on Barr in the committee, but Dianne -- Senator Feinstein asked the question on your behalf. Would you vote for his confirmation?

REP. JERROLD NADLER (D), CHAIRMAN, JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: No, I would not vote for his confirmation.

COOPER: Why?

NADLER: Well, two reasons. Number one, he's obviously there to protect the President that's why he was appointed, that's why Sessions was not good enough, he wouldn't recuse himself. COOPER: You don't believe that he -- I mean, he has said that he's not about protecting the President. You just don't buy that.

NADLER: I'm somewhat skeptical of that. And second of all, he made it clear that he would not -- I think he made it pretty clear that he would not release the Mueller report to the public and that's unacceptable. The public needs all the facts, and we can't have it filtered through someone who may be very partisan.

COOPER: Would it be acceptable to you to have some redactions in the report?

[20:45:01] NADLER: Well, some redactions that made by the professional agencies, by the FBI to hide individuals or, you know, protect witnesses, yes, that would be satisfactory. But I would much prefer if Mueller would do that rather than him.

He made it clear that he thought that he ought to release only certain information, that he was going to be the judge of that and that's simply unacceptable. I'm going to say it's not going to happen either because, if necessary, our committee will subpoena the report. If necessary we'll get Mueller to testify.

But the American people need the information here, especially given the Department of Justice and Barr's belief, which I don't agree with, but they do, that the president cannot be indicted, any president cannot be indicted no matter what the facts. That at least the American people must have the facts. Otherwise, how do you hold a president accountable in any way? He can't be above the law.

COOPER: Is it possible that Barr could make the argument while the president can't be indicted, the sitting president can't be indicted, therefore, the report should not be released because there's not going to be any indictment and that was the criticism of Comey.

NADLER: The criticism of Comey made sense because -- and I had watched that criticism that summer because he decided not to indict someone he could have indicted, and then he shouldn't pile on to that person.

But if you take the position that as a matter of law someone cannot be indicted, then the only substitute, Congress may want to take action. The only substitute for making a president answerable to the American people and not above the law is to give Congress and the American people all the information so that the Congress can vote impeachment if that seems advisable or something else.

Otherwise, if you're saying he cannot be indicted and therefore all the material must be held secret, then the president effectively is above any kind of justice and is above the law and that's unacceptable in a Democratic country.

COOPER: But you're saying if the administration decides not to -- or if the Department of Justice decides not to release the full Mueller report, you would subpoena the report? You would subpoena Mueller, or you would have him testify? NADLER: One or both. We would subpoena the report, and we might -- we could invite Mueller to testify. But we will get that information to the American people.

COOPER: So if you subpoena the report, what does that actually mean? Then you have it and you can release it?

NADLER: Yes. Now they would contest it, I would assume, but we would maintain that.

COOPER: And just -- you also have a testimony coming up for Whitaker. What do you want to hear from him? What are you most concerned about with him?

NADLER: Number one, the circumstances under which he was appointed. Again, was he appointed just to protect the President? Number two, did he allow Mueller a free hand? Did he tell Mueller not to indict anybody or not to pursue a line of inquiry or to modify anything in any way? Did he communicate with the White House? Did he transmit suggestions from the White House to the Mueller people? Did he tell the White House what the investigators were doing? All of which would be very problematical.

COOPER: And just in terms of Michael Cohen's testimony coming up, how important do you think that's going to be? And do you know the scope of what he will be able to be asked about? Has that been determined? Can he talk about things he's talked about to Mueller? Can he talk about things he's talked about to the Southern District?

NADLER: He can talk about a lot of that, I assume. Some of it he probably can't talk about. I assume the Southern District prosecutors or Mueller may tell him don't talk about this or that because it would imperil some investigation. Other than that, he can talk about anything that he knows, and he presumably knows a lot.

COOPER: You've been very obviously judicious about impeachment, about him discussing that. Republicans have continued to say that no matter what you say, there's going to be an increasing drumbeat for impeachment. And if there's no legal ramification in terms of an indictment that impeachment is really the only avenue the Democrats have and that is going to be inevitable the Democrats move for impeachment.

NADLER: It's a very powerful weapon not to be wielded lightly, and I don't think anybody can say at this point that we're going to do that or that --- and you can't rule it out either. But I don't think that -- certainly we'd be reluctant to do it unless there was an overwhelming case.

COOPER: Chairman Nadler, appreciate your time. Thank you.

NADLER: Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source