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

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

TAPPER: Hello. I'm Jake Tapper in Washington, where the state of our union is trying to keep up.

Washington is preparing for the expected release of the full Mueller report in just days, after a week in which President Trump seemed to spiral out of control a bit on his signature issue, immigration.

The president spent Saturday railing on Twitter, saying he's -- quote -- "not frustrated" -- unquote, except it sure seems like he is frustrated.

The president began the week by removing the top leadership of the Department of Homeland Security, ousting Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, along with other top leaders of ICE, the Secret Service, and more on their way out the door as well.

Then, after the White House denied that the president wanted release -- wanted to release undocumented immigrants into sanctuary cities, President Trump on Twitter confirmed he was considering such a move.

This as senior administration officials tell me that the president told border agents to stop letting asylum seekers into the U.S., contrary to U.S. law, and then he told the head of Customs and Border Protection he would give him a pardon if he went to jail for carrying out the president's order.

The president is now denying this, but his apparent anxiety on the issue is driven by real numbers. in March, 92,000 migrants were apprehended at the border. That's the highest number in over a decade.

Joining me now is the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Congressman Jerry Nadler of New York.

Congressman, Mr. Chairman, thanks for joining us.

I want to start with my reporting that, according to senior administration officials, President Trump told border agents to stop letting migrants, including asylum seekers, into the U.S., contrary to U.S. law. And then he told Kevin McAleenan, the commissioner of Customs and Border Protection at the time, that he would pardon him if he went to jail for doing so.

Now, I don't know if the president was serious or joking about the pardon remark, and he's since denied it, but those are the facts as relayed to me by senior administration officials. Your response?

REP. JERROLD NADLER (D), NEW YORK: Well, my response is that this just shows the president's contempt for law, another incidence of the president's contempt for law.

To order that something clearly illegal, namely, blocking people claiming asylum from coming into the country, which is clearly against our law, that that be done, is against the law. Or offering a pardon, even if in jest, to someone who would disobey the law at the president's request, this is exactly contrary to the key presidential duty and to his oath, which is to see that the faithful -- that the laws are faithfully executed. That's the main job of the president, to see that the laws are

faithfully executed. And for a president to sabotage that goal by deliberately seeking to break the law is unforgivable.

TAPPER: Is this something you think your committee will take a look at, or does it -- does your commentary on it end here on the show?

NADLER: Well, it's part of a pattern of conduct we certainly have to take a look at after we see the Mueller report.

TAPPER: President Trump has been pushing the Department of Homeland Security to transport undocumented immigrants to sanctuary cities and release them there.

Here is what the president asserted last night in a tweet -- quote -- "Just out, the USA has the absolute legal right to have apprehended illegal immigrants transferred to sanctuary cities."

Now, you're from New York City. That is a sanctuary city. Do you agree that the president has the -- quote -- "absolute legal right" to do this, if he wants to?

NADLER: No, I don't.

The president has no right to spend money appropriated by Congress for other purposes to ship immigrants all over the country.

[09:05:04]

If someone requests asylum, he should be considered. There should be a place for that person to stay while that request is being adjudicated. This is just -- nor is it right for the president to use immigrants or people who are claiming political asylum as pawns in a fight against political opponents.

He shouldn't use them as what he imagines as retribution to political opponents in various areas. It's another misuse of presidential power, against the law.

Now, we heard several weeks ago from whistle-blowers that this -- that Steve Miller came up with this, before we heard it -- about it from any other source. And probably Steve Miller, who seems to be the boss of everybody on immigration, ought to come before Congress and explain some of these policies.

TAPPER: Isn't it likely that he will claim executive privilege, given that he works in the White House, and not for a department?

NADLER: It is likely. But that would be a misuse of executive privilege, because he seems to be making the decisions, not the Cabinet secretaries who come and go.

TAPPER: Let's turn to the Mueller report. I know you want to talk about that. We expect that's going to be released any day now.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed the special counsel in the first place, defended Attorney General Bill Barr's handling of the Mueller report, telling "The Wall Street Journal" that -- quote -- "He's being as forthcoming as he can. And so this notion that he's trying to mislead people, I think, is just completely bizarre."

What's your response?

NADLER: Well, he would be forthcoming only if he releases the entire report and the underlying evidence to the Judiciary Committee, which has been done in every previous instance where they were looking into presidential or other misconduct.

That would be -- now, the Judiciary Committee is the proper locus of -- for deciding what has to be withheld from the public. Again, that's what's been done in the past.

To deny the Judiciary Committee and Congress the knowledge of what's in parts of the Mueller report is not proper. And, of course, the attorney general, when he started talking, completely without evidence, as he said, about spying on the Trump campaign, when what he meant was executing judicially ordered warrants, showed his bias and the fact that he's really acting as a personal agent to the president, rather than as the attorney general of the United States, in this matter.

TAPPER: In terms of the Mueller report, we already know that the special counsel report does not reach a conclusion when it comes to whether President Trump obstructed justice.

But Attorney General Bill Barr, he did reach a conclusion. He says there is not sufficient evidence to establish that the president obstructed justice. Does that end the debate over obstruction of justice?

NADLER: Well, certainly not, especially since Attorney General Barr, before he became attorney general, wrote a long memo in which he said that a president could not obstruct justice because the president is the boss of the Justice Department, and could order it around to institute an investigation, to eliminate an investigation, and could not be questioned about that.

In other words, he thinks that, as a matter of law, a president can't obstruct justice, which is a very wild and -- theory, to which most people do not -- do not agree.

And the fact of the matter is, we should see and judge for ourselves. And that's for Congress to judge whether the president obstructed justice or not, and for the public, ultimately.

TAPPER: It's not -- it's not the bailiwick of the attorney general to decide that?

NADLER: No, it is not -- no, it is not the bailiwick of the attorney general.

He assumed it for himself. That is not the purpose of the law. And the fact is that we also need to see the report, because it may be that the -- Mueller decided not to prosecute for obstruction of justice for various reasons, that there wasn't proof beyond a reasonable on some things, but there still may have been proof of some very bad deeds and very bad motives.

And we need to see that, and the public needs to see that.

TAPPER: The attorney general, as you noted, told Congress this week that he believed -- quote -- "spying occurred" against Trump associates during the 2016 election, saying he's concerned that improper surveillance may have occurred.

Now, you have asked Justice Department officials to brief you on this. Have they done that?

NADLER: Well, we have -- not recently.

But we have reviewed the inspector general's report and various findings over the last two years, and it's complete and total nonsense. The FBI followed procedure. They got a FISA warrant. They probably did it.

In fact, the Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein signed off on the -- on one of the renewals of that FISA warrant. And that is proper legal surveillance, when they -- when they were concerned that the Russians were attempting to infiltrate an American political campaign.

TAPPER: Mm-hmm.

NADLER: That is not spying. Spying is a loaded word.

[09:10:00]

And the president -- and the attorney general should not have used that.

TAPPER: I want to ask you.

President Trump posted a video on Twitter attacking Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar for her speech in which she described the 9/11 terror attacks as saying some people did something.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued a statement condemning the president for what he's doing, but she also seemed to have a message for Congresswoman Omar too saying in her statement: "The memory of 9/11 is sacred ground and any discussion of it must be done with reverence."

Did you take any issue with the way Congresswoman Omar characterized 9/11?

NADLER: No, I did not.

She characterized it only in passing. She was talking about discrimination against Muslim Americans. And she just said that, after that happened, it was used as an excuse for lots of discrimination and for withdrawal of civil liberties. No, I did not take -- I have had some problems with some of her other

remarks, but not -- but not with that one.

And for the president to -- 9/11 occurred in my district. I'm very familiar with it. I know a lot -- I know people, a lot of people, who suffered from it.

I was involved, I was instrumental in getting funding for small business grants for victims of 9/11, for people with small businesses in the area.

The president -- he wasn't president, but Donald Trump actually took a $150,000 grant from the Bush administration. They let him take a $150,000 grant meant for small businessmen for 40 Wall Street, the small business 40 Wall Street.

He stole $150,000 from some small businessperson who could have used it to help rehabilitate himself. And that's why we appropriated it, why I got Congress to appropriate that money. To use it for his own small business of 40 Wall Street, he has no moral authority to be talking about 9/11 at all.

TAPPER: All right, Congressman Jerry Nadler, the chairman of House Judiciary Committee, thanks so much for coming on. We appreciate it.

NADLER: Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source