CNN "Wolf" - Transcript: Sen. Jeff Merkley Interviewed

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: More now on the breaking news. The "Wall Street Journal" reporting that the boss over at the "National Enquirer" has been granted immunity in the Michael Cohen case. David Pecker is a long-time friend of President Trump's. He was directly involved in one of the hush money payments made by Cohen to a woman alleging an affair with Donald Trump.

Joining us now from Capitol Hill, Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley, of Oregon.

Senator, thanks so much for joining us.

I want to talk about Jeff Sessions and the feud he now has with the president of the United States. Let me, first, get your reaction to the fact that David Pecker, of American Media, the parent company of the "National Enquirer," a long-time friend of Donald Trump's, has been cooperating, testifying with the federal prosecutors in exchange for immunity.

SEN. JEFF MERKLEY, (D), OREGON: Well, Wolf, I'll tell you that inquiring minds want to know exactly what information he has on the president. But it must be a significant amount of substantive information to be granted immunity in this fashion.

BLITZER: You make a good point. They wouldn't be granting an individual immunity unless they really believed that individual had relevant information, potentially, about crimes.

MERKLEY: And Michael Cohen has put forward his story. He's now pleaded guilty to eight felony charges. The White House is disputing his story. I think this fits into the picture of the prosecution in that case, saying let's make sure we bring in the perspectives that all bear on the legitimacy of Michael Cohen's testimony.

BLITZER: If there was corroboration from David Pecker, another editor at the "National Enquirer" who also is receiving immunity, from the various documents, the electronic information, all of that stuff that was collected in that early morning raid on Michael Cohen's apartment, his home, his hotel room, his safe deposit box, if there's backup information saying that the president directly coordinated and directed the payment to Karen McDougal, $150,000, the former Playmate, in advance of the election to make sure that information would not come out in the days leading up to the election, what does that mean to you?

MERKLEY: Well, in summary, Michael Cohen is saying the president directed me to commit a crime. The question is, is Michael Cohen's statement enough on its own? Certainly, I think given his history, any jury, any judge would look at that and say there has to be a stronger case than just Michael Cohen says so. I think that's probably exactly what they're locking down.

But then the question is, so, if the president is essentially an unindicted co-conspirator in this illegal campaign act, this felony, then at what point should we stop proceedings on Kavanaugh? Because, quite frankly, there's also great reasons to not consider him because we don't have the documentation on the positions he's taken in the past. The Republicans are vetting that information, only feeding a small amount to the Democrats. That's not the transparency you need to exercise advice and consent. Now there's a second massive conflict of interest of a president essentially trying to print himself a get- out-of-jail-free card.

BLITZER: But you would need a Republican or two in order to get a simple majority to hold back on that consideration of Brett Kavanaugh to be a United States Supreme Court justice, isn't that right? You can't just do it with Democrats. You're in the minority.

MERKLEY: No, that's absolutely right. I go back to the health care debate where so many people thought that because the Republicans in the majority, because they had campaigned against the Affordable Care Act, they would wipe out health care for 22 million to 32 million Americans. We kept hoping that at least one Republican Senator or at least two would step forward and say, we really do care about the health care of Americans, we're not going to do this. That happened. In this case, we want one or two Senators to step forward and say, we really do care about a legitimate confirmation process for something as important as the Supreme Court.

BLITZER: You might need more than one or two because there could be two or three or maybe four Democratic Senators who will go along with the Republicans at this critically important time just before the midterm elections.

Let me move on to another issue, Senator, while I have you. The attorney general of the United States, Jeff Sessions, now publicly pushing back against the latest very brutal criticism from the president of the United States. What do you think? What's your reaction?

MERKLEY: Well, there's many things that Jeff Sessions has done that I completely disagree with. I disagree with his horrific child snatching policy. I disagree with his pushing for the Muslim ban based on one's religion. I disagree on his cannabis policy. But in this case, he is right to push back against a president who is saying he wants a personal lawyer in the position of attorney general. That is not what the position of the attorney general is. There's a higher obligation to the law. For Jeff Sessions to say, I will not be improperly influenced, obviously is a direct response to what the president has been saying publicly.

[13:35:28] BLITZER: Yes, this feud escalating right now very, very dramatically.

Senator Merkley, thanks for joining us.

MERKLEY: Thank you. And I'm on my way to sit in on that meeting between Sessions and the president. It will be interesting.

BLITZER: Let us know what happens over there at the White House.

Appreciate it. Thank you very much.

MERKLEY: Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source