CNN "The Situation Room" - Transcript: Interview with Sen. Blumenthal

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

BLITZER: We will watch it closely together with you, Sara. Thank you, Sara Murray reporting.

Let's get some more on all of this.

Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut is joining us. He's a member the Judiciary and Armed Services Committee.

So, Senator, thanks for coming in.

SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (D), CONNECTICUT: Thank you.

BLITZER: What message are these 12 Republican colleagues of yours in the U.S. Senate sending to President Trump with this vote against his national emergency declaration?

BLUMENTHAL: There are two ways to view it.

Number, one the president has certainly lost some of his sway. He made this vote intensely personal. It was about him. And he pushed, pulled, bullied in every way he could.

And the second, more hopeful note that I think is important is, Republicans are beginning to stand up and speak out. As Phil Mattingly said, this stunning rebuke comes a day after the vote on aid by this country to the Saudis in their absolutely vicious and inhumane bombing and famine campaign in Saudi Arabia.

We have no business being complicit. And the Republicans stood up to him.

BLITZER: The president tweeted today: "A vote for today's resolution by Republican senators is a vote for Nancy Pelosi, crime and the open border Democrats."

Yet 12 Republicans decided to vote against him. Clearly, though, you don't have 67 votes in the Senate. There's not a two-thirds majority in the House to override his presidential veto that could come as early as tomorrow.

BLUMENTHAL: Not today, for sure.

But all of us are going back to our states for a break. We're going to be hearing a lot from our constituents, who intensely dislike this wall. The numbers are off the charts. And we're going to be hearing from our constituents about the need for individual senators to show some grit and backbone against this imperial presidency, executive overreach.

And they want checks and balances. In a theoretical sense, as a lawyer, I can argue the constitutional point. But people understand in their gut that this president is usurping the power of Congress, the power of the purse, which is at the core of our Constitution.

BLITZER: Earlier in the day, he also tweeted that, maybe down the road, he would be willing to support congressional legislation to update the current national emergency law on emergency declarations. Do you believe him?

BLUMENTHAL: I think there may be a workable solution, a compromise among us in Congress.

I have trouble believing that the president's going to surrender any of his autocratic view of the presidency..

BLITZER: The president suffered another sort of rebuke today in the House of Representatives; 420 members, zero against, 420 voted in favor of a resolution calling for the new attorney general, once he gets Robert Mueller's report, to make it available to Congress and to the American public.

This is the Mueller investigation that the president calls a witch- hunt and a hoax. But almost everybody in the House, Republicans and Democrats, voted to try to make it public.

What's your reaction?

BLUMENTHAL: My reaction is that, again, my colleagues are hearing from their constituency, who overwhelmingly support transparency.

I have a measure. It's a bill, not a resolution, in the United States Senate, which is supported on a bipartisan basis -- Senator Grassley and Senator Kennedy have both supported it -- that would require public disclosure, which the American people need and deserve. They paid for this report. They deserve to see all the findings and evidence.

And I think the House vote reflects that the public's right to know is a core issue here. And anybody who votes against it is actually complicit in a potential cover-up.

BLITZER: Well, in the House, nobody voted against it; 420 members voted in favor of it.

But it was immediately blocked in the Senate. Lindsey Graham said there's got to be other attachments. As a result, it's not even coming up for a vote in the Senate.

BLUMENTHAL: I think we can speak to each other in the United States Senate. There may be a basis for us to work together, because the principle of transparency is one that I think is bipartisan.

[18:15:00]

And let's face it. The present attorney general has said that he at least now adheres to the Department of Justice policy that the president cannot be indicted.

If there's no indictment, and there is no report made available, there is, in effect a cover-up. And my colleagues will be judged harshly by history if they are complicit in it.

BLITZER: What does it tell you that a key prosecutor on the Robert Mueller Russia probe team, Andrew Weissmann, is now leaving the special counsel's office?

BLUMENTHAL: It tells me there are more tea leaves that the investigation is coming to a close.

But, remember, on the other side of the ledger, Roger Stone still has a trial in November.

BLITZER: November 5.

BLUMENTHAL: The grand jury is ongoing. It was extended. There's still evidence from Roger Stone's home that has to be examined and analyzed.

There is still ongoing coordination between the special counsel and other investigations, like the Southern District of New York and New York state authorities.

So I think we will be guessing. Only really Mueller knows when it will come to a close. And one day, we will be right in guessing that it's that day.

BLITZER: If there's a trial November 5 involving Roger Stone, doesn't that suggest that the special counsel's office has to keep on working?

Now, potentially, he could change his mind and plead guilty and avoid a trial, hope to get some sort of reduced sentence. That doesn't look like it's going to happen anytime soon.

BLUMENTHAL: No indication that he is going to plead.

The likelihood is, there will be a trial. And your point is very well taken. That trial is likely to be revelatory. Trials always are. There's always evidence that is introduced that is unanticipated by the prosecutors and by the defendants.

And I would expect that the Roger Stone trial will be that way.

BLITZER: On an unrelated matter, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled today that the families of the Sandy Hook victims, they could go ahead and sue the manufacturer of the gun.

What's your reaction to that?

BLUMENTHAL: Profoundly important legal moment. It's a wow moment in American legal history, because, for the first time, gun manufacturers will have to defend themselves in court.

The victims and survivors from Sandy Hook will have their day in court to hold accountable those gun manufacturers for their marketing practices, as well as potentially other illegalities.

As you know, Wolf, until now, the gun manufacturers have enjoyed absolute, complete immunity, unlike almost every other industry. And I have a bill in the Congress that will extend that protection now going to Connecticut citizens to all Americans, so that it would repeal this absolute immunity.

BLITZER: I know you have worked closely with all those families. And let's see what happens on the legal front right now. As you point out, potentially, a very, very significant legal development.

Senator Blumenthal, thanks for coming in.

BLUMENTHAL: Thank you very much.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source