CNN "Erin Burnett Outfront" - Transcript: Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) Discusses His Preparation For The Senate Impeachment Trial of President Donald Trump

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

BURNETT: All right. Manu, Thank you very much. And I want to go OUTFRONT now straight away to one of the newly named impeachment managers who will make this case to the Senate, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Democratic Congressman Jerry Nadler. Of course you saw him front and center in the house impeachment proceedings.

Chairman, so here you are, obviously, formally now named as an impeachment manager. How are you and the other managers preparing for the trial now?

REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY): Well, we are preparing for the trial by going over all the evidence. The overwhelming evidence that was presented in the House. The more evidence that is just coming out in the next few days.

We are noting the fact that the different President in an unprecedented in American history has tried to stonewall and block all evidence, and that's the second article of impeachment. But this abundant evidence of the President's betrayal of his country and commission of high crimes and misdemeanors.

And the real question now is will the Senate be complicit in the President's crimes? Will the senate hold a real trial or will they deny witnesses and evidence? Every impeachment in the history of the country, every trial in the history of the country, you have witnesses.

The American people know that if someone is accused of something, witnesses are brought to testify, pro and con. The idea that the Senate would say that you can't have witnesses is just meaning that they want to participate in the cover up by the President.

BURNETT: And I want to ask you about that, but first have you decided what role you're specifically going to play? I mean, obviously, there's going to be various roles to play but they would be the making the opening arguments and how you're going to divide that up and then if there are witnesses who does the cross examining? I'm sorry. Go ahead.

NADLER: We will divide the work as it seems fit. But how we divide the work is hardly the issue. The issue is the fact that we have a serious threat to the Constitution of the republic by the President of the United States that he not only violated his oath of office, but that he tried to get a foreign government to join in rigging our next election. And he used hundreds of millions of dollars in federal money voted by Congress to do this for his own personal gain.

And the question before us now is will the Senate be complicit in this by refusing to conduct the trial and if you don't have witnesses, you don't have a trial?

BURNETT: So there are witnesses and information, now we understand from what Manu was reporting that the information we have, for example, the letter Rudy Giuliani sent to the President of Ukraine in which he requested a meeting for a very specific request with the consent and knowledge of the President. That, Manu was saying, would be admissible as with the text messages regarding the surveillance of then Ambassador Yovanovitch.

Do you have additional levers though beyond that, Chairman, that hasn't been released yet?

NADLER: There is plenty of evidence. There is evidence that we're still going over. It was just received, that is not been translated from the Russian yet that is in our possession. But the fact, again, remains all evidence, all relevant evidence is admissible in any trial, whether it's a trial for a local bank robbery or a trial for treason against the United States, all evidence is admissible, unless - I mean, the idea that you don't admit evidence is unheard of.

BURNETT: Yes.

NADLER: And the fact that the Republicans in the Senate are considering that is saying that they're considering making the impeachment trial not a trial as the Constitution demands, but a cover up with the President.

BURNETT: So there is, of course, the question and I know it's the whole back and forth on what witnesses you could have waited for in the House, how long you would have waited to get them and that plays into what some Republicans in the Senate see is whether they should accept new evidence, but also witnesses.

NADLER: All evidence should be accepted in any trial, all evidence, including evidence that came in after the start of the trial is acceptable, if it's relevant.

BURNETT: Right.

NADLER: That's the only question, is it relevant.

BURNETT: OK.

NADLER: And the fact is that we waited for a year in trying to get evidence because the President block access in an unprecedented move in American history, blocked access, and is still blocking access to the best of his ability to all of the relevant evidence.

BURNETT: So Republican Senator Lamar Alexander known as an institutionalist who has seem to indicate he would want things like witnesses was asked about new evidence today. I wanted to read the quote to you how he responded, Chairman.

He said, "The question would be why then did they," referring to you in the House, "bring the articles of impeachment if they didn't hear from the witnesses they wanted to hear and hadn't considered the evidence they want to consider."

[19:10:08]

NADLER: We brought the articles of impeachment because despite the fact that we didn't hear from many witnesses we should have heard from, we heard from enough witnesses to prove the case beyond any doubt at all. But now the Senate or some of the senators are saying, Senator McConnell was saying that they shouldn't be any witnesses at all and that's just travesty.

BURNETT: One person not on the independent managers team is Independent Congressman Justin Amash. As you know he'd gotten a lot of discussion as to whether he wanted to be, told me last week he'd be honored to be asked. But today, Speaker Pelosi said there was no consideration of naming Amash and Democratic Congressman Dean Phillips told CNN today he's disappointed about Amash not being chosen.

His quote, I'm quoting Congressman Phillips, Chairman, was, "As an attorney, former Republican, and the only independent member of the House of Representatives, he," Amash, "has articulated the Constitutional rationale for impeachment as well as anyone in Congress, and his absence is a missed opportunity for a bipartisan management team."

Do you think this was a missed opportunity?

NADLER: Well, I think Justin Amash showed a lot of courage in doing what he did. I think there are a lot of members of the House, Mr. Amash, and many, many others who would make a very fine managers. And the Speaker chose seven and that's her choice. I think the seven she chose are very good people.

BURNETT: And finally, are you preparing to deal with Hunter Biden as a witness? NADLER: Hunter Biden should not be a witness because you only have

witnesses who are relevant. That is to say the President is accused of certain crimes and high crimes and misdemeanors. If someone has evidence, pro or con, as to whether he committed those crimes in high crimes and misdemeanors, he's relevant.

Hunter Biden has no way of knowing anything about the allegations against the President. Some of the Republicans urging that he'd be called are simply trying to confuse the issue and to throw a red herring in it. If someone is accused of a bank robbery, the relevant witnesses are people who know who can say he did or didn't rob the bank, not someone who knows nothing about that.

BURNETT: All right. Thank you very much, Chairman Nadler. I appreciate your time tonight.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source