MSNBC "The Rachel Maddow Show" - Transcript: Interview with Rep. Jerry Nadler
Interview
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY), RANKING MEMBER, HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Thank you.
MADDOW: So, I feel like this story about Acting Attorney General Whitaker changed a lot over the course of the day. The early headlines suggested that he had been told by ethics officials that he did not need to recuse. That later appeared to be contradicted by anonymous Justice Department officials who went to reporters today to say, no, he actually said he did not want an opinion after he`d been advised that he should recuse.
What do you make of this?
NADLER: What I make of this is the professionals, the career people at the department obviously told him that there is an appearance of impropriety problem here and he must recuse. He didn`t want to do that. I assume the president didn`t want him to do that. He`s there -- remember, the president got rid of sessions specifically because he recused himself. He didn`t want someone else who would recuse himself. So that they came up with a political -- political people came up with an explanation, and they had to try to explain the earlier instructions, and this is what they came up with.
Now, the fact is that we have always suspected that he was put there as a hatchet man to undermine the Mueller investigation. Chairman Cummings, chairman to be Cummings of the Oversight and Investigation Committee and I had a telephone conversation with Whitaker a few weeks ago in which he did agree to come in and testify before our joint -- a joint hearing of our committees in January. He`s been backtracking on that.
We are sending him a letter tomorrow demanding that he come in in January as he had promised he would.
MADDOW: He agreed to you overtly and now is rescinding the promise?
NADLER: He didn`t rescind, but they cannot find a date. They cannot find a time. They`re backtracking on it.
So we`re sending a letter tomorrow morning demanding that they set up a date and a time in January. And if not, being the majority, we`ll have ways of compelling that. And obviously, this is among the major questions we have to look at because the number one priority is to protect the integrity of the Mueller investigation.
MADDOW: If he is defying ethics advice from the career ethics officials at the Justice Department -- and those are serious, folks, and they`re not partisans, and they`re not people who make decisions on the basis of political whims. If he is defying that advice and sort of trying to evade that advice by not asking them for a formal opinion, taking an indication from them they are advising him to recuse and therefore saying I don`t want you to give me an opinion about it, is that improper? Is that something that he should be held accountable for by your committee and oversight?
NADLER: It is something he should be held accountable for. It is very improper because we have ethics officials and we have rules for this purpose, to prevent conflicts of interest and to assure the American public that they get dispassionate justice, especially in the Justice Department.
MADDOW: Uh-huh. In terms of the president`s, I guess nominee designate to be the new attorney general, we also got what to me was very surprising news about him having declared his position on an important part of what we believe the Mueller investigation is looking into. I`d like to get your reaction to that news about Bill Barr right after the break, if you don`t mind.
See, that was a little cable news trick.
NADLER: Sure.
MADDOW: All right. We`ll be right back with Jerry Nadler, the incoming chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. We`ll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MADDOW: Joining us once again is Congressman Jerry Nadler of New York. He`s the incoming chairman of the Judiciary Committee and a House congressman.
Thank you for staying with us.
NADLER: Pleasure.
MADDOW: It has been a remarkable day. The surprise resignation of the defense secretary tonight has obviously taken I think the whole world by surprise. We also -- the early part of the day today was dominated by revelations out of the Justice Department, which, of course, you will be -- you will have oversight responsibility for as chairman judiciary. The president`s apparent nominee to run the Justice Department post-Jeff Sessions and post -- Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker has written a 20-page memo criticizing aspects of the Mueller investigation, or what he believes are aspects --
NADLER: Criticizing the scope of the investigation, saying that they should not be looking into the question of obstruction of justice because the president has ever right to, under the Constitution, to fire Comey, to do various other things which he did, but legally that`s nonsense. Of course, he has the right to fire the FBI director and do various other things, but not for improper motives.
MADDOW: Uh-huh.
NADLER: Not for corrupt motives, not for the motive of shutting an investigation against himself. That`s obstruction of justice.
MADDOW: The president has appointed Mr. Barr or will nominate, we are told, Mr. Barr to the attorney general position. Senator Schumer, the top Democrat in the Senate said he should pick a nominee. That this memo is disqualifying on its -- on substantive grounds because of the arguments made here.
Do you agree?
NADLER: I totally agree. He`s making the argument that you can`t -- essentially that you can`t investigate any president for obstruction of justice, that no president can conduct obstruction of justice as long as what he does for the obstruction of justice are legal acts, like firing -- like firing Comey or firing the special prosecutor by Nixon. It doesn`t matter, as long as it`s a legal act to do, he can`t be guilty of obstruction of justice which is a nonsensical argument and takes the whole question off the table. If you had that argument, Richard Nixon would have been fine.
And he`s totally prejudiced the investigation. He can`t be the one who will decide whether Mueller is allowed to prosecute for obstruction of justice. He can`t be the one who is allowed to decide whether Mueller`s
report is made public or given to Congress because he`s totally prejudiced.
But then again, anybody the president will appoint at this point, I assume, will be appointed for the purpose of shutting down or prejudicing that investigation. And that was proven by the fact that he got rid of Sessions whose only sin from his point of view, was that he recused himself.
MADDOW: What can be done to protect the investigation, given what seems more bare today in terms of recognizing the president`s intention to try to get at the investigation, to try to get at the special counsel from inside the Justice Department? Obviously, legislation has gone nowhere.
NADLER: Legislation has gone nowhere. We can try again, which we will. That`s number one.
Number two, the attorney general should not be -- the attorney general nominee should not be confirmed because he`s someone who was put there for the purpose of shutting down or damaging the investigation. Number three, if necessary, there are actions we can take. For example, if Mueller should issue a report and give it to the attorney general and the attorney general, instead of giving it to Congress or making public decides to pocket it, we can subpoena it. Or we can simply invite Mueller to come testify and ask in front of the committee, what was in your report?
MADDOW: If the southern district of New York or, indeed, the special counsel`s office or any other empowered prosecutor anywhere in the country decides to test the office of legal counsel, advice that the president can`t be indicted, let`s say the Southern District of New York decided that the president should be charged with the same felonies that Michael Cohen pled guilty to because the prosecutors laid out evidence in his charging documents that suggested that the president was equally involved, as much involved in those felonies as Michael Cohen was.
What do you -- how would that be adjudicated? What would be your view on a U.S. attorney trying to do that?
NADLER: Well, my view would be that the U.S. attorney would be doing the right thing. I think that the OLC decision that the president cannot be indicted no matter what he does is a deeply un-American decision. We rebelled against the king of England because we said no one should be above the law.
Most Americans we know shouldn`t be allowed the law. Not the king. Not the president. The framers, if you read the debate of the constitutional convention were worried the office of the president should not become a king.
There is language in the Constitution giving certain immunities, congressman cannot be arrested going to and from -- Congress cannot be held accountable for what they say on the floor and so forth. If the framers had wanted to make the president immune from indictment, they would have said so in the Constitution, as they say in these other cases. So it places the president above the law. And that`s wrong. No one should be above the law.
MADDOW: So you take issue with those OLC memos. They are controlling policy at the Justice Department.
NADLER: They are.
MADDOW: Do you intend to interrogate that?
NADLER: What we can do about it is another question. I would certainly, we`re going to introduce -- there is another question, by the way. If a president committed a crime and you can`t indict him because he`s president, he may be immune because of the statute of limitations may run. So one thing we`re going to do is introduce legislation that the statute of limitations does not run for anything with respect to a president while the president is president. So he can`t escape prosecution just by being president.
MADDOW: That is a law I cannot imagine President Donald Trump signing.
NADLER: I cannot either, but it is something we ought to do, even for after this. I`d like to get rid of this OLC doctrine altogether.
You asked if they decided to prosecute him nonetheless, then the president presumably would raise the defense in court that a president is unindictable and the courts would decide that question.
MADDOW: Congressman Jerry Nadler of New York, the incoming chairman of the Judiciary Committee -- sir, thank you. Much appreciated.
NADLER: Thank you.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source