Collusion. Some of his fellow republicans are set to rebuke him on foreign policy. Might a white house shakeup help him get back on course . John kelly will be leaving. Marco rubio will be here next. And taking on trump. Hello, New Hampshire democrats are looking ahead to 2020. Very good people out there. Very crowded field of potential candidates did some of those contenders already miss their moment . Hello. Im jake tapper in washington where the state of our union is attempting to connect the dots. President trump seems to be trying his best to change the subject, announcing saturday he will be replacing his chief of staff, john kelly, an announcement that was supposed to be made tomorrow. This, after some of the most significant clues yet into President Trumps potential political and legal vulnerabilities in the ongoing special counsel investigation as well as the Southern District of new yorks probe into his former associate Michael Cohen. The president is also trying to put his own spin on the story, falsely claiming that he is, quote, totally cleared and saying this on saturday. On the mueller situation, were very happy with what we are reading because there was no collusion whatsoever. There never has been. The last thing i want is help from russia on a campaign. It is difficult to imagine how the president or any of his supporters could be, quote, very happy with these new legal filings from Robert Mueller and federal prosecutors. For the first time prosecutors implicated President Trump in two crimes, saying he directed Michael Cohen to make these hush money payments to two women in order to impact the 2016 president ial election. The filings also offer new insights into the depth of the special counsels russia investigation, including previously unknown attempts to infiltrate the Trump Campaign in 2016 and reveal that both Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen have been in touch with people closely connected to the white house as recently as this year. Lets go straight to the incoming chairman of the house judiciary committee, congressman jerry nadler of new york, soon to be mr. Chairman. Thank you for joining us. We appreciate it. Thank you. I want to read a key line from the Southern District of new york filing friday. Quote with respect to both payments cohen acted with the intent to influence the 2016 president ial election in particular and as cohen himself has now admitted with respect to both payments, he acted in coordination with and at the direction of individual one. Individual one, of course, is President Trump. So, thats crystal clear. Federal prosecutors are saying that the presidnt ordered Michael Cohen to commit two federal Campaign Finance felonies. In your view, does that rise to the level of an Impeachable Offense . I think with these indictments and filings show is that the president was at the center of a massive fraud several massive frauds against the American People. Its now our job, the job of the Justice Department, the special counsel and the congress to get to the bottom of this, to find out exactly what was going on, to find out the extent of the president s involvement, to find out basically what the president knew, when did he know it, so we can hole him accountable. If it is proven that the president directed or coordinated with cohen to commit these felonies i understand its been alleged but not yet proven. If proven, would they be Impeachable Offenses . They would be. Whether theyre important enough to justify an impeachment is another question. Certainly theyre Impeachable Offenses. Even though they were committed before the president became president , they were committed in the service of fraudulently obtaining the office. That would be the that would be an Impeachable Offense. The fact of the matter is that what we see from these indictments and charging statements is a much broader conspiracy against the American People, involving these payments, involving an attempt to influence the campaign improperly, with improper payments involving the russians, trying to influence the campaign, involving the president lying for an entire year about his ongoing business arrangements business dealings with the russians, involving obstruction of justice. All of these have to be looked at very seriously by the congress, by the special counsel and by the Justice Department and to see what alcohols we should then take and what is clear also is that the Republican Congress absolutely tried to shield the president. The new congress will not try to shield the president. We will try to get to the bottom of this in order to serve the American People and to stop this mafs fraud on the American People. Can you explain what you mean when you differentiate between maybe these are if its proven, its Impeachable Offenses but that does not necessarily mean that the offenses themselves are important enough to actually begin pros proceedings of impeachment . There seems to be a difference there in your view. Why . Its not necessarily a difference. Its simply two different considerations. You dont necessarily launch an impeachment against the president because he committed an Impeachable Offense. There are several things you have to look at. One, were Impeachable Offenses committed, how many, et cetera. Secondly, how important were they . Do they rise to the gravity where you should undertake an impeachment . An impeachment is an attempt to effect or overturn the result of the last election and should do it only in very serious situations. Thats the question. You just said that the president seems to have been in the middle of a massive fraud against the American People. That doesnt sound like somebody who thinks that these alleged crimes dont rise to the level of needing impeachment. I didnt say they dont rise i said we have to get to the bottom of all of this. We have to find out exactly what was going on. We have to look at these crimes and what did the president know, when did he know about these crimes . We have to look at the russian interference in the campaign, to what extent he knew about that and cooperated with that, if he did. We have to look at his business dealings and look at the fact that he surrounded himself with crooks, campaign manager, deputy complain manager, National Security adviser, all of them, and a host of other people, were meeting with russians and expressed interest in meeting again. None of them reported it to the proper authorities. Theyve all been indicted for one crime or another. The president created his own swamp and brought it to the white house. These are all very serious things. We have to get to the bottom of this, find out what the facts are. We, and the special counsel, and then make decisions. You say youre considering legislation that would pause the statutes of limitations for any crimes a president might commit while hes in office, the current Justice Department guidelines that a sitting president , although theyre in dispute, but whether or not theyre suggesting that a current president cannot be indicted. Do you think a current president cannot be indicted . If so, do you think President Trump should be susceptible to being indicted after he leaves the white house . I disagree with the office of the special counsel and department of justice, nothing in the constitution prohibits a president from being indicted and i think its very important that this country originated in a rebellion against the english king. We did not seek to create another king. Nobody, not the president or anybody else can be above the law. Theres no reason to think that the president should not be indicted. The reason given by the office of Legal Counsel is that it would take up too much of his time, he couldnt do his job. The constitution specifically allows an impeachment. I dont agree that a president cant be indicted. Insofar as the Justice Department refuses to indict a president no matter what the crimes, because they think he cant be indicted, we should certainly tow the statute of limitations so if he has done something where he should be indicted and they would not consider indicting him as president , he shall be indicted afterwards. Nobody should be above the law. Youre going to continue the investigation into whether biased fbi influence investigations youve called it a waste of time, nonsense. A lot of people on both sides of the aisle were appalled by the attacks of lisa page and peter strzok before and after the 2016 election. Are you not concerned at all by ending that investigation youll be shirking the congressional oversight responsibility over the Justice Department and the fbi . No. I think that was thoroughly investigated by the Inspector General, who found that while a couple some of the agents inside the fbi had their personal opinions about candidate trump, which theyre entitled to, the Inspector General in his very thorough report found that those opinions did not, in any way, influence the actions of the department. The department, remember, is prohibited by law for asking the political opinions of anybody they hire. Plenty of people were supporting trump in the fbi and department of justice. Plenty of people who didnt like him. Thats their personal opinion and the fact that one of them said it to another on the is okay as long as they didnt bring any bias to any decisions and the Inspector General found that they did not. This has been thoroughly investigated. Frankly, its not a question of ending the investigation. Theres nothing left to investigate. Its been done several times. In point of clarity, the Inspector General said that about the investigations of Hillary Clintons email server through the summer of 2016, but i dont think they reached the same conclusion, necessarily, about decisions made after that. He said there was for the second one, he said there was no evidence that he saw. All right. Soontobe chairman of the house judicial committee, jerry nadler, thank you. We appreciate your time. Thank you. The president said by the end of the year his chief of staff will be gone. Will his replacement try to restore order or will it be more let trump be trump . And breaking with him on foreign policy, well talk to marco rubio about that next. Stay with us. Go big this holiday at tmobile. When you buy one of the latest sumsung phones you get a free 50 samsung 4k tv. You gotta be kidding me. Seriously, no [announcer] seriously. Get to a tmobile store today. [screaming yelling] discover. O. I like your card, but im absolutely not paying an annual fee. Discover has no annual fees. Really . Yeah. We just dont believe in them. Oh nice. You would not believe how long ive been rehearsing that. No annual fee on any card. Only from discover. This is my paris, follow me. Mon paris. The feminine fragrance. Yves Saint Laurent and just like you, the further into winter we go, the heavier i get. And while your pants struggle to support the heavier you, your roof struggles to support the heavier me. Crash and your cutrate insurance might not pay for this. So get allstate, you could save money and be better protected from mayhem like me. Mayhem is everywhere. So get an allstate agent. Are you in good hands . Our mission is to provide complete, balanced nutrition. For strength and energy whoohoo greattasting ensure. With nine grams of protein and twentysix vitamins and minerals. Ensure. Now up to 30 grams of protein for strength and energy ingenious space neat nest™ by fasaving design. So you can go from this. To this. Farberware neat nest™. Stacked intact™ welcome back to state of the union. Im jake tappe ertapper. Republicans are set to break from President Trump on the sawed a arabia as the probe is putting more pressure on lawmakers who have been supportive of the president. Marco rubio of florida, member of the Senate Intelligence and Foreign Relations committee. Thank you for joining us. Thank you. I want to get to all those issues i talked about in the open in a moment. First, i want to ask you about retiring chief of staff john kelly. Speaker ryan called him, quote, a force for order, clarity and good sense. If the last year was an example of order, clarity and good sense, are you at all concerned about what happens next in the white house without john kelly . It depends on who they put in as his replacement. Im a huge john kelly fan. Ive known him since he served in florida. His last assignment before runnirun ing working for the military. Theres always a turnover in chief of staff. Every president has at least a couple. Well see who they put as a replacement and well go from there. Hes hard to replace, no doubt about it. Hopefully it will be someone just as qualified, just as strong that is good for our country to have someone like that in our post. New Court Filings from the Southern District of new york. Here is what they wrote about trump lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen. Desired outcome knocked on doors or phoned, cohen did so by soliciting secret and illegal payments. They say he made the payment, quote, in coordination with and direction of then candidate donald trump. You were a candidate for president in 2016, running against donald trump. Does it bother you that they were breaking campaign laws, allegedly, in order to win the election . Not about me. When that happened i was well outside the race. Its about our country, what the laws are and no one should be above the law. At the beginning of all of this, i said we deserve the truth. No one is beneath the law. No one is entitled by the protections of it but no one is above it. Mr. Cohen has a version of it. Obviously, those who are accused or potentially accused as part of it have another. We dont know what Additional Information the Justice Department has to corroborate some of this. They dont necessarily have to put that in these filings. So my interest, from the very beginning, in all of this, is for all the information to be out there before the American People so that the court system can make judicial and justice decisions and the American People can make political decisions and congress as well. So, im going to wait for all of that to come forward. Obviously this is relevant information. And things that cannot and should not be ignored. If it is proven that the president directed an aide to commit felonies to influence the election, what should the repercussions be . Were speculating, right . You have someone facing criminal charges, facing sentencing and looking for leniency saying one thing and its not atypical people to be very cooperative and sometimes stretch the truth. Im not saying thats what happened here. And you have someone who denies it. If someone has violated the law the application of the law should be applied to them like it would any other citizen in this country. Obviously, if youre in a position of Great Authority like the presidency, that would be the case. I dont know if it will reach that point or not well have to wait and see. My decision will not ab political nation but the fact that with we are a nation of laws and no one in this country, no matter who you are, is above it. Its not just Michael Cohen saying this. The Southern District of new york u. S. Attorney is asserting this. And that was what was stark about the different language. They werent just saying according to cohen, such and such. They were saying this happened. And thats why i think people should reserve judgment. We dont know what Additional Information they have to corroborate taking that position. And there may be additional evidence presented at the sentencing phase later on. We dont know. It may just be based on his testimony. Because we dont know, we cant make decisions or pronouncements on things we dont know yet. Gates has called for the president to pardon his form er campaign chair, Paul Manafort, part of the Mueller Investigation not the Southern District of new york. Would that be a mistake . Yes, and i would strongly counsel against it. I dont think that, in my view, the president ial pardon power was not created for these sorts of purposes. I just think it would be the wrong thing to do. I think it would be a huge political mistake as well. I hope that doesnt happen. That would be my position on it. Lets turn to saudi arabia. You introduced a resolution that finds the saudi princrown princ quote, complicit, in the murder of jamal khashoggi. Now the New York Times is reporting that the president s soninlaw, jared kush