CNN "CNN Newsroom" - Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) is Interviewed about Impeachment

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: Happening now, Jennifer Williams, senior adviser to Vice President Mike Pence, now testifying under oath on Capitol Hill. She was on that now-infamous July 25th call. This as House Democrats gear up for public impeachment hearings to begin next week. Three open hearings already on the schedule including top U.S. diplomat to Ukraine Bill Taylor.

We're pleased to be joined now by House Judiciary Chairman and New York Democratic Congressman Jerry Nadler.

Congressman, we appreciate you taking the time this morning.

REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY): Good morning.

SCIUTTO: Let me begin with a very basic question. Have you and the Democrats started drafting articles of impeachment against the president?

NADLER: No, we have not.

This whole thing is a -- in really a couple phases. Phase one, which we're in now, which the Intelligence Committee and some of the other committees are doing and will continue doing until they finish is the evidence-gathering, fact-finding phase. Then it will come to the Judiciary Committee and we'll -- our job is to consider the evidence, reach conclusions and draft and debate and perhaps vote on articles of impeachment.

SCIUTTO: Do you believe Jamey Raskin, one of your Democratic colleagues, he said earlier this week that he's already convinced that there is sufficient evidence for articles of impeachment against the president. Do you -- are you concerned that that undermines Democrats' argument that they are holding an open process with open minds as they gather evidence?

NADLER: No, I'm not because people can form their own conclusions and they can change their minds if more evidence should come forward.

And in the Judiciary Committee, we're going to have full due process for the president, and that means that if there's any exculpatory evidence, any evidence tending to show that he's innocent, whether it's witnesses or anything else, they'll be able to bring it forward. Maybe that will change people's minds.

SCIUTTO: I want to get -- I want to get to the details of what that due process will look like.

But you personally, have you seen enough evidence to be convinced that the president committed high crimes and misdemeanors?

NADLER: I've seen a lot of evidence of that. But maybe there will be evidence contradicting it, which I haven't seen yet.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

So you still have an open mind?

NADLER: I have to have an open mind, but certainly there's a very heavy case against him at the moment.

SCIUTTO: Public hearings begin next week. How many public hearings should the public expect? How many witnesses should we expect to see before you complete the public phase?

NADLER: I don't know. I don't know how many witnesses the president or his -- the minority, the Republicans or the president's counsel, want to call. I'm not --

SCIUTTO: How many do the Democrats want to call?

NADLER: I don't know that either yet. I assume we'll have to decide that after the fact-finding phase is complete, when the Intel Committee -- the Intelligence Committee, which is having these hearings now, along with two other committees, is going to write a report to the Judiciary Committee and, based on that, we may decide which witnesses, if any, we want to call.

SCIUTTO: There's been some speculation and among --

NADLER: Maybe they'll have done the job and we won't have to call any further witnesses.

SCIUTTO: Understood.

There's been some speculation that House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff is a possible witness to be called. Would you support that?

NADLER: It's not a question of supporting it. If he wants to testify, he's entitled to testify. Actually, I think the procedures that were adopted -- let me take that back, I think the procedures that were adopted provide that the counsels for the committees can testify. I'm not sure the chairman can.

SCIUTTO: Well, there has been speculation, but I know that this may still be an open question. Do you still envision a vote on articles of impeachment against the president before Christmas as a timeline that has been proposed --

NADLER: I'm not going to speculate -- I'm not going to speculate on a timeline. We will -- we'll take we want to do it -- we want to finish the process as expeditiously as possible. We also want to do it thoroughly. And in a way that will convince the American people that the American people see what the evidence is, what the contradictory evidence is, if any. And if it's going to be done, it's got to be done right and whatever time it required it will take.

SCIUTTO: Can you complete that process? Can you complete evidence gathering if the White House continues to block the testimony of key administration officials? I know that's going to go to the courts, but the courts may not decide on the timeline that Democrats want.

NADLER: Well, it's certainly wrong for the White House to do that. It's, I think, contradicts law to defy subpoenas.

SCIUTTO: Do you think it's illegal?

NADLER: Yes, I do. I think it's -- it's -- you can't just defy subpoenas -- legitimate subpoenas. I think the courts, and so far they've been upholding the subpoenas once they've gotten there.

[09:35:04]

And I think the courts will continue to do that. But we can't wait for that process. And the question will be, do we have sufficient evidence to go forward? And I think we will. Without some of the evidence that would be nice to have.

SCIUTTO: So you believe you can get sufficient evidence without hearing directly from White House, administration officials who have refused to testify?

NADLER: Well, we'll have to decide whether we have sufficient evidence, but it certainly looks like there's a lot of evidence. I mean the evidence produced in public -- so far by the intelligence -- in front of the Intelligence and Foreign Affairs and Oversight Committees, which we're going to see -- much of which we're going to see publicly, and we've seen opening statements, indicates almost unanimously every witness comes in and confirms the same story, namely that the president sought to extort a foreign country into intervening in an American election.

SCIUTTO: You'll --

NADLER: Eighty percent of the American people, according to the polls, know that that's wrong and it's clearly wrong.

SCIUTTO: Bill Taylor testified that he kept meticulous notes of his interactions, discussions, regarding this. Have Democrats -- do Democrats, have they seen these notes? Do they have possession of these notes for the investigation?

NADLER: I don't know. That's in the Intel Committee and I don't know whether they have them or not. It should certainly be made available to them. And if the -- if they're in the possession of the State Department and if the Intel Committee requests it and if the State Department says no, that would be another instance of obstruction, really.

SCIUTTO: Lindsey Graham has presented the latest line in what has been evolving, as I'm sure you noted in the GOP defense, of what happened here. This one basically alleging that the White House policy towards Ukraine was, in his words, incoherent. The argument being they were, in effect, too incompetent to carry out an effective quid pro quo. Is that a credible defense in your view?

NADLER: Well, first of all, I certainly -- it's a hell of a thing to say about the administration, especially the administration of their own party that they're incompetent in foreign affairs where life and death is at stake.

But, second of all, no, that's not a -- that's not a -- that's not a view -- that's not a defense. There's plenty of evidence of what they did. That evidence will establish they -- they -- I think it will establish very clearly that -- I think it does establish very clearly that the administration wanted to make -- that the president wanted to make a deal, that he wanted to condition American aid, the sending of American aid, which had been mandated -- when had been voted by Congress and the provision of a meeting with the president, which the president of the Ukraine desperately wanted, and he wanted to condition both of those things on the president of the Ukraine making various statements about a political opponent of the president in the United States. That seems -- a lot of people have said that. No one has contradicted it really.

SCIUTTO: Final question, just quickly, if you held a vote today in the House, would you vote to impeach this president?

NADLER: Well, that question I won't answer because I do have to keep an open mind and an appearance of an open mind. I have said that the evidence is pretty damning.

SCIUTTO: Congressman Nadler, we appreciate you taking time this morning and joining the broadcast.

NADLER: You're welcome.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source