CNN "State of the Union" - Transcript: Interview With Rep. Nadler

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

BASH: Joining me now, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Jerry Nadler.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for joining me this morning.

First, I want to get right -- right to the debate that is going on in your caucus about the articles of impeachment.

The question is whether to include obstruction of justice stemming from the Mueller investigation or just focus on Ukraine.

You're the chairman of the committee writing these articles. What do you think?

NADLER: Well, we're going to have a hearing tomorrow in which the Intelligence Committee is going to present the evidence.

And we have to consider the evidence, which shows overwhelmingly that the president put his own personal interests above the interests of his country. It shows that -- and the evidence is virtually uncontested.

It shows that he -- he worked with the Russians in trying to affect the election in 2016. Then he tried to cover it up. And then he learned nothing and tried to get the Ukrainians to intervene and help him in the election for 2020. And he was trying to cover that up.

This poses a real threat to the integrity of our elections. It's a matter of urgency. And after we have -- after we hear the evidence, more of the evidence tomorrow, and after there's a discussion tomorrow, then we will -- then we will make these decisions.

BASH: So you will be hearing evidence about the Mueller investigation and report during tomorrow's -- what you're calling a trial?

NADLER: Well, we will -- we will be hearing the evidence that the Intelligence Committee reports to us. And we will see what that includes.

BASH: OK. But just -- just generally on this issue, you said earlier this year -- quote -- "It's very clear that the president obstructed justice."

You also said that obstruction of justice is an impeachable offense. So, if you believe both of those things, can we assume that you, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, would want to include obstruction of justice going back to Mueller and the investigation?

NADLER: We have a lot to consider after the presentation of the evidence tomorrow as to what articles of impeachment should be drafted and how broad they should be and what they should include.

[09:20:08] BASH: What do you think?

NADLER: And we will make -- I'm not going to say right now, before we hear the evidence tomorrow. But we will make those decisions in the coming -- after that, after tomorrow.

BASH: Well, let me ask sort of more broadly about this debate that I mentioned that you are well aware of in your caucus.

What I'm hearing from moderate Democrats is that they want two articles of impeachment, abuse of power and obstruction of justice. They say anything from the Mueller report would muddy the impeachment.

In fact, I want you to listen to Democratic Congressman Max Rose, who told CNN on Friday that the Mueller report is not why he supported the impeachment inquiry, just the opposite.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MAX ROSE (D-NY): I was against going through with impeachment previous to that Ukraine matter.

When I came out and said that, I was very serious about it. And unlike most of the people in this institution, I'm not going to just say something and forget about it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: So, Congressman Max Rose and others who are urging it to be narrow are members of Congress who won in Trump districts, gave you the majority, made you chairman. They're the most vulnerable and could lose elections because of this.

How much are you listening to them as you draft these articles?

NADLER: Well, we're going to have to take a lot of considerations into account.

What is the level of proof of the various allegations? How do they relate together? What is the level of support in our caucus and in the House for them? What might we persuade the Senate of?

All of these things have to be taken into account, realizing, again, that the central allegation, it's all of the pattern.

The central allegation is that the president put himself above his country several times, that he sought foreign interference in our elections several times, both for 2016 and 2020, that he sought to cover it up all the time, and that he continually violated his oath of office, and that all this presents a pattern that poses a real and present danger to the integrity of the next election, which is one reason why we can't just wait for the next election to settle matters.

We have to go forward with considering articles of impeachment, because of the threat that his pattern of conduct poses to the election itself. BASH: I have to say, as you're talking about this, you keep bringing up the 2016 election and Russia. It certainly sounds to me like you want that to be included going forward.

NADLER: Well, I wouldn't draw any conclusions.

It is part of the pattern, which is why I bring it up. It's part of a pattern of his conduct, which -- which stresses the urgency of making sure that we deal with this, so that the 2020 election is carried on honestly, with integrity.

BASH: OK. OK.

So let's talk about the substance of your case for impeachment. House Republicans, as you know, released a rebuttal to the Democratic impeachment report, saying that Democrats have not proven a quid pro quo.

Here's what it says. It says: "There is, however, no direct firsthand evidence of any such scheme. The Democrats are alleging guilt on the basis of hearsay, presumptions and speculations."

Do you feel comfortable that you and your fellow Democrats have conclusively proven that the holdup in military aid was in exchange for investigations and that, most importantly, it was a direct order from the president himself?

NADLER: It wasn't -- it wasn't even in return for investigations. He didn't care about the investigation.

He cared about announcing an investigation, because that was the political thing he wanted.

BASH: But you...

NADLER: He wanted -- he wanted the Ukrainians to announce it, to announce that they were going to hold an investigation.

BASH: But do you feel comfortable that this whole thing was directed by the president himself?

NADLER: Yes, absolutely.

BASH: You feel that you have a rock-solid case?

NADLER: Yes, we have a very rock-solid case.

I think the case we have, if presented to a jury, would be a guilty verdict in about three minutes flat.

And all this nonsense about hearsay evidence, there is considerable direct evidence. And it is -- it ill behooves a president or his partisans to say, you don't have enough direct evidence, when the reason we don't have even more direct evidence is the president has ordered everybody in the executive branch not to cooperate with Congress in the impeachment inquiry, something that is unprecedented in American history, and is a contempt of Congress by itself.

He has ordered everybody not to participate. The only testimony we have are from public-spirited, patriotic people in the CIA, the Pentagon, the White House itself, who came forward and defied the president's orders and testified.

BASH: So I'm glad you brought that up, because we have been hearing a lot from you and your fellow Democrats about the fact that the White House is obstructing Congress by not handing over documents, not allowing key firsthand witnesses like Mick Mulvaney, like John Bolton, like Mike Pompeo, to testify.

But the founders, who we heard a lot about in your committee last week, set up a third co-equal branch of government, the courts, to resolve differences like this.

[09:25:00]

But you have not even tried to go to the courts to compel these witnesses to testify.

NADLER: Well...

BASH: With something as grave as momentous as impeachment, why not?

NADLER: Well, first of all, we have gone through the courts. And some of those cases...

BASH: Not on this issue.

NADLER: We have gone to the courts, starting with McGahn and various other people.

BASH: Right, but not on Ukraine and on the impeachment inquiry.

(CROSSTALK)

NADLER: And what we -- and what we have found is that the courts take months and months.

But we don't need to go to the courts. The Article 1 power, which is Congress' power, is the sole power to try impeachments, should not be and has never been dependent on the courts.

The president and the executive branch are duty-bound to cooperate with Congress in any legitimate inquiry. And the president's absolute failure to do so and defiance is an act against the separation of powers, against the constitutional scheme, and shouldn't require anything from the courts.

Now, the courts are a way to try to enforce this, but much too slow a way.

BASH: Well, you told CNN one month ago that you wanted to do this thoroughly, saying -- quote -- "If it's going to be done, it's got to be done right. And whatever time it requires, it will take." So, what changed?

NADLER: And I think -- nothing has changed, except -- except for the fact...

(CROSSTALK)

BASH: But you said the courts would be too slow.

NADLER: ... except for the fact that we have gotten all this extremely persuasive evidence on the blackmail against the Ukraine -- against Ukraine -- to try to interfere in our election, the fact that this evidence is uncontested and overwhelming.

And, notice, the Republicans -- we have asked the president. We have invited him to testify. We invited him to send witnesses. We invited him to send his counsel to cross-examine witnesses. He's declined to do all of this.

If he had any exculpatory evidence, they would have brought it forward. The fact that the Republicans and the president have brought -- have basically not contested the evidence at all.

Even their witness at our hearing last week, Professor Turley, said that what he did was clearly impeachable if proven sufficiently. And I think that any fair judge would have to say that the -- that it has been proven thoroughly and uncontested.

BASH: OK.

Just real quick on something that Adam Schiff, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, suggested on this very show two weeks ago. He had said that it might be quicker to compel the firsthand witnesses we're talking about to appear in a Senate trial.

Do you see that happening? You probably will be involved there, too.

NADLER: Well, that's possible. I don't want to speculate, but that is possible.

But, again, we have got to act with dispatch, because the president -- because the president put himself, his own interests above that of the country. And it is urgent. There's a sense of urgency, because he will do anything, from -- judging from his past conduct, that he can to get interference and to rig the next election, which is why we must act to safeguard the integrity of our democracy.

BASH: I want you and our viewers to listen to something that you said during the impeachment of Bill Clinton in 1998.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, 1998)

NADLER: They must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties, and largely opposed by the other.

Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: So, right now, you are moving forward with impeachment proceedings against a Republican president without support from even one congressional Republican.

Is it fair to say that this impeachment, in your words from back then, will produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come?

NADLER: No.

I think what puts bitterness and divisiveness into our politics is the conduct of the president, who calls -- who questions the patriotism of people who don't agree with him, who calls political opponents human scum, who talks about the fake press, who derides the judiciary, who questions -- who attacks all our democratic institutions.

And the fact of the matter is that the polling says that 70 percent of the American people know that what he did was wrong. And, yes, it will be up to -- it's up to us now in the House, and presumably will be up to the senators, to see if we will and if the senators will put the welfare of the country and patriotism above partisan considerations or not.

BASH: So, you are willing to impeach the president with no Republican votes, correct?

NADLER: We're going to impeach the president -- if we're going to impeach the president, we will impeach him on adequate and urgent grounds to defend our democratic republic.

BASH: And if there's no Republican votes, so be it?

NADLER: It's up to them to decide whether they want to be patriots or partisans.

BASH: So I want to ask you about one -- what comes next.

All eyes are going to be on your committee, obviously, for the next week, maybe more. In the short term, the Republicans are asking for more time to review documents that you just released.

[09:30:02]

They also say that House rules require you to give them a day to call their own witnesses. Are you going to give them one?

NADLER: They have had adequate time. These documents -- which is basically the report of the intelligence committee were given to them as soon as we received it but the report contains nothing new. They had their own people on the intelligence committee.

They were there. The American people saw the public hearings. The Republicans were present at the closed depositions earlier -- BASH: And what about witnesses? Will you gave them a day to call witnesses?

NADLER: We -- they -- we've given -- no. We've said that the -- they will have the opportunity to call witnesses. They have to give me a list of witnesses. The list of witnesses they gave, they asked me to call, I've said no to because they are irrelevant.

They can appeal to the full committee if they wish and we'll have a vote on that. But we are going to -- like any trial judge, you keep the witnesses to the relevancy. Adam Schiff they wanted -- is not a relevant witness. He didn't witness anything. His counsel according to the House rules is going to report to the committee tomorrow.

And every -- every procedure, every fairness has been given to them. They have declined to use them. Again, they have declined -- the president has declined to call witnesses. They have declined an attorney to cross-examine.

BASH: Mr. Chairman, one last question about time frame. Is it possible that you are going to vote on articles of impeachment this coming week?

NADLER: It is possible. I don't know.

BASH: Is that your goal?

NADLER: My goal is to vote -- is to do this expeditiously --

BASH: In terms of the time line.

NADLER: My goal is to do it as expeditiously but as fairly as possible, depending how long it takes.

BASH: OK. And are the articles of impeachment currently underway? I mean, there are drafts. They are being written as we speak, correct?

NADLER: Well, there are possible drafts that various people are writing but the fact is we're not going to make the decisions as to how -- what the articles should be as to what they contain and what the wording is until after the hearing tomorrow.

BASH: Chairman Jerry Nadler, thank you so much for your time this morning.

NADLER: You're quite welcome.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source