CNN "State of the Union" - Transcript: Interview With Rep. Nadler

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. JERROLD NADLER (D), NEW YORK: Good morning.

BASH: First, on our reporting that there will be no further indictments in the Mueller probe, that means, in the end, no member of the Trump campaign was charged with conspiring with the Russian government to influence the election.

Do you accept that no member of the Trump team engaged in that kind of criminal conspiracy with Russia?

NADLER: Well, I don't know.

First of all, we don't know what indictments are forthcoming from other investigations that have been spun out by the special prosecutor to the Southern District of New York or the Eastern District of Virginia.

(CROSSTALK)

BASH: Right, but his main mission was about Russia.

NADLER: Yes.

BASH: Do you think he would -- do you think he, Mueller, would send that to other parts of the Justice Department?

NADLER: I don't know. That's one of the things we will have to see when we read the report.

And that's one of the reasons that I think it's so crucial that the entire report and the evidence underlying it be released to the public. Transparency is key here.

I mean, obviously, we know there -- we know there was some collusion. We know that the president's son and campaign manager were involved in a meeting with the Russians to receive stolen -- what they thought was to receive stolen information -- information stolen from the Russians by the Democratic National Committee, as part of the Russian government attempt to help Trump in the election.

That's the way the e-mail inviting them to the meeting put it.

(CROSSTALK)

BASH: But none of what you just said has risen to the level of a criminal indictment by the special counsel.

NADLER: No, it hasn't, as far as we know.

But we know there was collusion. Why there's been no indictments, we don't know.

But let me say further, we know a number of things. We know what I just said. We know that the president pressured the FBI to go easy, to stop investigating Flynn and various other people. We know that he fired the FBI director, as he put it to the -- to NBC, to take care of the Russian thing, in order to stop the investigation of various people associated with him.

We know that he concocted the lie about the purpose of that Russian meeting. We know that he -- that a lot of his top associates have been indicted and convicted, and we know that he has engaged in a relentless two-year attack against the FBI, various law enforcement agencies.

(CROSSTALK)

[12:05:10]

BASH: So, on that note, Mr. Chairman, what you are describing is evidence to back up what you said before, that you believe the president has obstructed justice. You still believe that?

NADLER: Well, there have been obstructions of justice.

Whether they are -- clearly. Whether they are criminal obstruction is another question. But we have -- the special prosecutor is limited in scope. His job was limited in scope and limited to crimes.

What Congress has to do is look at a broader picture. We are in charge -- we have the responsibility of protecting the rule of law, of looking at obstructions of justice, at looking at abuses of power, at corruption, in order to protect the rule of law, so that our democratic institutions are not greatly damaged by this president. And that's what we intend to do.

BASH: So, on that very note -- right.

And on that very note, if Robert Mueller comes out in his report and suggests very strongly or states flat out that he agrees with you that the president obstructed justice, or that the president may have committed some crime that DOJ guidelines don't allow to be indicted, will you begin impeachment proceedings?

NADLER: It's way too early to speculate about that. Remember, the -- it is true that the Justice Department thinks that they cannot indict a sitting president, no matter what the evidence, as a matter of law. And that's what makes it even more important that all the evidence be given to Congress and the American people, because, while the normal rule is -- and it's a good rule -- that if you aren't indicting someone because you don't have enough evidence, you don't then smear their name by saying they did these terrible things.

If you're not indicting someone because you can't as a matter of law, then you can't hold the president accountable. The only institution that can is Congress, and you should not then hide the evidence, because that converts it into a cover-up.

BASH: Right.

NADLER: Congress needs that evidence, and the American people need that evidence and information to make judgments.

BASH: Well, let me ask you about that, because I'm glad you brought that up. The deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, has made clear that he wants to -- quote -- "prevent the disclosure of information that would unfairly tarnish people who are not charged with crimes."

But we just heard you saying that people should see the entire report, that evidence underlying it. Democrats were pretty upset in 2016 when then-FBI Director James Comey publicly accused Hillary Clinton of wrongdoing, but then said, well, she shouldn't be indicted.

So, why shouldn't allegations that don't reach an indictment threshold -- I'm talking not about the president, but on everybody else -- stay confidential?

NADLER: Well, because we need to know what was going on here.

And it's not just the question of indictments. It's a question of protecting the rule of law and of obstruction of justice and abuses of power and protecting our government and our whole system.

And it's been subjected to an unprecedented attack. Law enforcement agencies have been subjected to an unprecedented smear campaign by the president against the FBI, the special prosecutor, other law enforcement agencies. We have to know the facts, so that we can protect our institutions. We need to know.

BASH: You have to know the facts, but do you want the American public to know as well?

NADLER: American public -- yes., the American public has to know the facts, so they can make judgments.

BASH: And you are not worried about the underlying notion of the protocol of not getting -- putting out evidence on people that are not indicted is to protect reputations and so forth? That was the concern again about Hillary Clinton. You don't think the same should be applied for Trump officials? (CROSSTALK)

NADLER: Well, we're not talking about indictments. We're talking about what -- about the American people finding out what went on and what has gone on. It's a very different question. We have to know.

BASH: OK.

I want to ask you about Robert Mueller's report overall and the whole notion that you and other Democrats, including the House speaker, have talked about with transparency. If the Justice Department is not going to hand it over to you fully and say that it can be fully put out to the American public, are you absolutely sure that you will issue a subpoena?

NADLER: Well, we will try to negotiate. We will try everything else first.

But if we have to, yes, we will certainly issue subpoenas to get that information.

BASH: And you're going to be willing to take that all the way up to the Supreme Court, if you have to?

NADLER: Absolutely.

And, by the way, the -- the -- we are already hearing that the president may want to claim executive privilege on some of this. And -- but the fact is, he has no right to claim executive privilege on any evidence of wrongdoing. Executive privilege cannot shield evidence of wrongdoing.

And that was made very clear by the 9-0 decision of the Supreme Court in the Nixon case, where they ordered the tapes revealed, even though those tapes were personal conversations with the president and some of his advisers. Executive privilege cannot be used to shield wrongdoing.

BASH: How long are you going to give the Justice Department to turn it over?

[12:10:00]

NADLER: I can't give you a specific answer to that. We will talk to them, and we will see.

BASH: But, I mean, days, weeks, months? Can you give the general notion of where you're going?

NADLER: It won't -- it won't -- it won't be months.

BASH: It won't be months. Okay.

So you were likely to see the main conclusions of the Mueller report as soon as today. Will you accept them at face value?

NADLER: Well, we're likely to see what Barr characterizes as the main conclusions of the Mueller report.

And we will accept them, but subject to seeing all the underlying data. We have to make judgments, the American people have to make judgments as to how founded those conclusions are or Barr's summary of the conclusions are.

And that's one reason we have to see the entire report and the evidence underlying it.

BASH: Are you suggesting that Barr might mislead about what those Mueller conclusions are?

NADLER: No, there are judge -- no, I have no reason to say that.

But I am suggesting that people make judgments, and those judgments could be right or wrong, in other words, in making a judgment as to how to characterize an observation.

BASH: And what about when you get to the point where you actually do see the whole report from Robert Mueller? Will you trust those results? Do you have full faith and confidence in the way the Mueller investigation went?

NADLER: I assume -- I have a great deal of confidence in Mueller and the people who work with him. I think they have done a -- they are very good people.

So I my expectation is that, yes, I would trust that, but, like any other product of human hands, we have to look at the underlying evidence and make our own judgments as to their judgments.

BASH: So, on that note, let's say he doesn't find that the president obstructed justice. Will you stop your investigation in the House on that issue?

NADLER: Well, he can -- he cannot find that the president did or did not obstruct justice, because his mandate is to look for crimes, and the policy of the Justice Department is that you cannot look for any criminal acts by the president. So he cannot make that judgment.

He can give evidence one way or the other. And that evidence is useful.

(CROSSTALK)

BASH: Yes, exactly, because you don't --

NADLER: But he can't reach that conclusion.

And the other point is, our mandate, as a Congress, and as the committee, for that matter, is much broader. The special prosecutor is looking only at crimes. We have to look at protecting the rule of law, at obstruction of justice, at abuses of power on a much broader level than simply crimes.

BASH: Chairman Jerry Nadler, thank you so much. You're going to have a very busy morning, probably, and afternoon ahead. And feel free to come back as soon as you get those conclusions. We're here.

NADLER: Thank you.

Source