CNN "State of the Union" - Transcript: Interview with Rep. Jerry Nadler
Interview
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
TAPPER: Welcome back to STATE OF THE UNION. I'm Jake Tapper.
We're live from Detroit, ahead of the CNN Democratic presidential debates.
After Robert Mueller's long-awaited testimony last week, House Democrats took a major step toward possibly impeaching President Trump. The House Judiciary Committee went to court to try to get the secret grand jury materials behind special counsel Mueller's report, arguing that information is needed to make a decision on impeachment.
Joining me now, the House Judiciary Committee chairman, Jerry Nadler of New York, the man who would theoretically lead any impeachment proceedings or hearings.
Congressman Nadler, thanks so much for joining us.
REP. JERROLD NADLER (D-NY): Thank you.
TAPPER: I just want to clear this up, because there does seem to be some confusion after your press conference on Friday as to whether or not the House Judiciary Committee is formally pursuing an impeachment inquiry could, because, in your filing, you ask the court to enforce a subpoena for Mueller's grand jury material.
You write -- quote -- "The Judiciary Committee is investigating whether to recommend articles of impeachment."
I want to clear this up here. You're investigating possible impeachment, but you haven't formally opened an impeachment inquiry.
Are you trying to have it both ways here?
NADLER: No, we're not trying to have it both ways. We said exactly what we are doing.
We are investigating the question of -- we're investigating the corruptions of the administration, the abuses of power, what Mueller showed, the possible violations of the Emoluments Clause, all the things that might cause us to recommend articles from impeachment.
There are articles of impeachment that have been recommended to the committee. And we are investigating and determining whether we should report those articles to the House. That's exactly what we're doing.
TAPPER: So...
NADLER: And we're going to court get more evidence.
TAPPER: I understand -- I understand the role you need to play as chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
But, separately, I'm just wondering your personal view as a member of Congress. Do you personally support impeaching President Trump?
NADLER: My personal view is that he richly deserves impeachment. He has done many impeachable offenses. He's violated the law six ways from Sundays.
But that's not the question. The question is, can we develop enough evidence to put before the American people? We have broken the logjam. The president and the attorney general were lying to the American people consistently, saying that the Mueller report found no obstruction, no collusion, and exonerated the president.
I think the hearing the other day was an inflection point, because it showed quite clearly that the report did not exonerate the president, that it found that the Russian can't -- the Russian government tried to influence our campaign, they interfered in our election, they attacked our election.
The Trump campaign welcomed that assistance and cooperated with the Russian government in -- in trying to affect the campaign. And then the president lied repeatedly to the American people and to investigators and conducted a corrupt cover-up with at least five criminally indictable acts of obstruction of justice.
These are very serious offenses against the rule of law. And we now have to get further evidence and put it before the American people as we consider articles of impeachment in the committee.
TAPPER: Do you think the president should be prosecuted after he leaves office?
NADLER: I will leave that to a prosecutor after he leaves office.
But it is clear that the -- well, let me put it this way. It is clear that, if it weren't for the Department of Justice opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted, this president -- anyone else who had done what he did would have been indicted for at least five different major crimes.
And a president who is immune from prosecution, by virtue of the Justice Department's saying that every president is immune from prosecution, should be prosecuted after he leaves office, or at least impeached and removed from office, if you can prove those crimes. TAPPER: You just said that the Mueller testimony this week, in your
view, was a -- quote -- "inflection point."
I have to say, only nine House Democrats after the testimony came out and called for an impeachment inquiry. It's still just a minority of the Democratic Caucus who supports proceeding with an impeachment inquiry, about 43 percent, about 100 Democrats.
It doesn't seem to have been an inflection point for very many House Democrats. Why do you think that is?
[09:25:03]
NADLER: Well, I -- I think it was an inflection point, that it broke the administration's lie, the attorney general's lie that the president was totally exonerated by the Mueller report. Quite the contrary. There was very damning evidence put forward on the record.
And I think, as the American people understand that, as people absorb that information, as we bring out more evidence, people will understand the gravity of the situation. It's not one that can be ignored.
TAPPER: At your press conference on Friday, you said that Mueller had a -- quote -- "remarkable exchange" with Congressman Ted Lieu of California, saying that Mueller said -- quote -- "But for the Department of Justice policy prohibiting from doing so, he would have indicted President Trump."
Those are your words.
But, Mr. Chairman, Mueller walked that whole statement back before his afternoon testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT MUELLER, RUSSIA PROBE SPECIAL COUNSEL: I want to add one correction to my testimony, morning -- who said -- and I quote -- "You didn't charge the president because of the OLC opinion."
That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we didn't reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NADLER: Yes.
TAPPER: Were you not aware that Mueller had walked that back?
NADLER: Well, what Mueller -- Mueller very carefully in the report and there said that he did not make a decision, but he did not make a decision only because he thought -- and he says this in the report -- he thought it unfair to the president to say he was guilty and was likely guilty of a crime, when the president couldn't defend himself in a trial that wouldn't occur -- that wouldn't occur because he could not be indicted because of the Department of Justice's decision.
But it is very clear from what the Mueller report lays out. It lays out five instances of obstruction of justice, and it lays out the three elements of the crime very clearly, with all the evidence that shows -- that shows that he -- that, had he not been the president, he would have been indicted for those crimes.
TAPPER: Right, but the exchange with Ted Lieu is misleading, because Mueller walked it back. He said he didn't mean to say what he said to Ted Lieu.
NADLER: He was very careful not to say what the report makes clear, if you read the report, because he doesn't think it's fair to charge -- to say the president is charged, when he can't -- when there can be no trial because of the Department of Justice rule.
But he lays out in the report evidence that very clearly establishes all three elements of the crime of obstruction of justice on at least five different counts.
TAPPER: You subpoenaed some of the underlying materials, the information for the Mueller report on Friday, saying that there appears to be -- quote -- "compelling evidence of the president's misconduct outside of what's in the Mueller report."
Are you suggesting that Mueller and his team left pivotal evidence out of his report and testimony?
NADLER: No.
The Mueller team conceived of its -- of its purview in rather narrow terms. They looked at a couple of things. There were things that they didn't really look at, for instance, all the financial entanglements of the -- of the -- Trump with the Russians and to what extent did that influence the Russian attempt to help the Trump campaign win and the -- and the cooperation of the Trump campaign gave to the Russians?
There were quite a few different things, the Emoluments Clause, the fact that the administration -- or the administration -- that Trump seems to be making lots of money for his hotels and other things from the fact that he is president, in direct violation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, which is designed to prevent American presidents or any other American civil servants from being influenced by foreign powers.
So, he didn't look into a number of these different things.
TAPPER: Congresswoman Jackie Speier told me a few days ago that she thinks, if impeachment proceedings have not begun by September, then that -- then, really, there's no point in going on and beginning them.
Do you agree that there is a deadline of sorts, just because of the 2020 election?
NADLER: No, I don't. We have to defend the Constitution. And we -- and it's not -- we have
to defend the Constitution against these kinds of unconstitutional and illegal deeds. And we have to make sure that a president who does that pays a penalty, so that the next -- so that that kind of conduct is not normalized and legalized, in effect, for the next president.
So, we have to do this whatever time frame there is. And we're doing it now. We're engaged in an investigation into these different alleged crimes and into whether the president violated his oath of office to take care the laws are faithfully executed, to the various abuses of power.
[09:30:10]
And we're investigating -- we're looking into, as I said, the articles of impeachment that have been referred to the committee and other articles that might be drafted.
TAPPER: Chairman Jerry Nadler of the House Judiciary Committee, thank you so much for your time, sir. We appreciate it.
NADLER: You're quite welcome.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source