CNN "The Situation Room" - Transcript: Interview With Senator Richard Blumenthal
Interview
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
BLITZER: Shimon Prokupecz helping us better appreciate this.
And to be precise, the president said the appointment of the special counsel is totally constitutional, not just unconstitutional.
Thanks, Shimon, for that.
And joining us now, an outspoken Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Richard Blumenthal.
Senator, thanks so much for coming in.
SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (D), CONNECTICUT: Thank you.
BLITZER: You tweeted this, this morning on the possibility of the president pardoning himself.
You said this: "Only in a two-bit tin horn totalitarian dictatorship could the president even consider pardoning himself from all accountability. It's unthinkable in this great country, and already legally indisputable."
Why do you believe the president is asserting his -- quote -- "absolute right" to pardon himself?
BLUMENTHAL: I take it that the president feels that he may be in need of a pardon, that he likely has done something wrong.
All of these statements are typical of somebody who has something to hide or has done something wrong. Legally, there's absolutely no question, Wolf, that the president of the United States cannot pardon himself.
There was a reference earlier to the Department of Justice opinion, which says -- and I have it with me -- that the question should be answered in the negative, the question being, can the president pardon himself?
And it is actually filled with legal reasoning, unlike the president's memo, which is really a nakedly, blatantly political ploy, not a legal document.
BLITZER: The special counsel's investigation, special counsel Robert Mueller, he was appointed last year on May 17, 2017, by Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general.
The president has now had more than a year to cooperate with Mueller's investigation. He now says it's totally unconstitutional all of a sudden. Why do you think he is making this argument all of a sudden now?
BLUMENTHAL: I am the last person to try to read Donald Trump's mind. But I think this attack, part of a continuing pattern on the special
counsel, is an effort to discredit the investigation before it concludes its report, to demean the special counsel in the eyes of the public. Again, we're not dealing with a legal argument.
The constitutionality of a special counsel has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court when there was actually a statute that was even broader than the regulation that has given rise to this special counsel.
[18:10:01]
So, I think it is part of a pattern of trying to attack the investigation because it's the president who is under investigation.
BLITZER: It was just upheld by a federal judge in the Paul Manafort case as well.
Rudy Giuliani going one step further, the president's personal lawyer, saying the president can't be indicted while he is still in office -- quote -- this is what he told Huffington Post -- "If he shot James Comey, he would be impeached. Impeach him, and then you could do whatever you want to do to him."
What do you make of that reasoning?
BLUMENTHAL: Well, first of all, I am dismayed by the reference to shooting anyone, especially days after the Parkland High School graduation.
The last thing in the world we ought to be talking about is that kind of gun violence. But take the statement itself that the president is above the law. Only in two-bit, tin-horn dictatorships do people talk about the monarch or the reverend leader being above the law.
And the president is not above the law. I really hope -- and here is my main point today, Wolf -- that my Republican colleagues will agree with Senator Grassley that lawyers who give that kind of advice ought to be fired.
And I hope my Republican colleagues will speak up and stand up, because nothing less than the rule of law is at stake in this debate, in this week and months ahead, because, clearly, the president is seeking the last resort and last refuge of someone who believes possibly in his own guilt. Namely, attack the investigators, attack law enforcement, attack the special counsel.
BLITZER: And we know the special counsel is closely looking at that statement released by the White House after"The New York Times" reported on that controversial Trump Tower meeting between the president's son, the son-in-law, his campaign chairman, and a Russian lawyer.
The statements that they put out, Jay Sekulow, his lawyer, the White House press secretary, they were wrong. According to this 20-page letter in January from the president's lawyer to Mueller, the president actually dictated that statement.
Why do you think they were trying to mislead? If the president actually wrote that statement, dictated that statement, why would they suggest something else?
BLUMENTHAL: The president dictated that statement in order to mislead the American public, but also the investigators. The statement was about the Trump Tower with meeting Russian agents that was attended by his son, his campaign manager and his son-in-law, when they were promised dirt on Hillary Clinton.
And the president concocted this statement to mislead and deceive. And that indicates a state of mind that could be and probably is evidence of obstruction of justice.
Now, I think that memo is a grave disservice to the president. It's a stunning admission. But, also, the memo miscites statutes, 1505, instead of 1522, of the United States Code. It, in addition, engages in this kind of magical legal thinking.
And I think it will be cited as probably among the worst lawyering the president of the United States has ever been provided.
BLITZER: In that statement that the president dictated, he said the meeting was not a campaign issue at the time, even we know the meeting was the result of a promise from the Russians to provide dirt on Hillary Clinton to the Trump campaign.
I'm sure Mueller is looking into that as well.
Senator, thanks so much for coming in.
BLUMENTHAL: Thank you.
BLITZER: Senator Blumenthal of Connecticut.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source