MSNBC "The Rachel Maddow Show" - Transcript: Russian Investigation

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA), RANKING MEMBER, HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: You  bet.

MADDOW: I am reading a lot into that specific line in the memo that you  and other Democrats on House Intel released. I am reading into that in  part because you, yourself, have done a few interviews about it. You have  talked about that new information. This wasn`t just the same information  we had before phrased in a different way. This is the first time that  we`re learning that Russia previewed for at least one person on the Trump  campaign that they were going to disseminate this stuff that they had  stolen.

SCHIFF: Well, that`s exactly right. And it is significant because we know  from the guilty plea and the statement of the Papadopoulos defense that the  Russians told them, hey, we have stolen Clinton or DNC e-mails. We know  from the FISA application and what the Justice Department allowed us to  share that they previewed the dissemination, that they could basically  unanimously publish these emails. That`s in April, before the Clinton  campaign even knows the Russians have those e-mails.

So, a few weeks later when the president`s son takes this is meeting in  Trump Tower with the Russians with this lawyer sent out from Moscow for the  purpose, with the promise of incriminating information about Hillary  Clinton as part of the Russian government`s effort to help Donald Trump,  what`s Don Jr.`s response? If it`s what I think it is, I would love it.

What does he think it is? Does he think it is e-mails because Papadopoulos  was told the Russians have it and the Russians are prepared to disseminate  it? It`s certainly one very plausible explanation of what he was  expecting. It would also explain why he was so deeply disappointed that  what they produced at this meeting wasn`t what was expected.

Now, shortly after that meeting when word goes out that have meeting that  the Trump campaign at the highest levels wants Russian help but they`re  disappointed in what we produced at the meeting, within days of that,  Julian Assange announces he has received stolen Clinton e-mails which we  now know he has gotten from the Russians. So, it is significant. It`s  another piece of the puzzle.

I think when I saw that indictment of the 13 Russians and all its detail  and whatnot, what leapt out at me is the same thing that leapt out at you,  which is there`s no discussion of the hacking and dissemination of e-mails.  Now, why is that? I can tell you one thing, it`s not because of a lack of  evidence that the Russians did all this. There`s abundant evidence that  could have been included.

Indeed, if there were going to be the end of the story, it would have been  included. You would want to make the most complete and powerful case  against what the Russians did. These two things complement each other.  They explain the whole story or a large part of the story.

So, why don`t you do it? You don`t do it if you`re not ready for some  reason on that piece. And it`s not because they weren`t ready on the  Russian piece. It may be because they weren`t ready on the collusion  piece. That is, would U.S. persons be included in that conspiracy to  defraud the U.S. and violate U.S. election laws?

So, I don`t know that Mueller has reached the conclusion about whether he  can prove that beyond a reasonable doubt or not. But it seems to me that  the reason you don`t include that in the first indictment is you`re still  working on that part of the investigation.

MADDOW: And you are speaking not just as the top Democrat in the  Intelligence Committee but also as a former prosecutor yourself. And  conspiracy, I think, means different things in layman`s language than it  does in legal terms. But if we`re talking about a crime being committed,  which is the stealing of the documents, the way that Mueller defined  conspiracy to defraud the United States in some of his earlier indictments,  I think we may also see -- I can imagine him also describing the  dissemination of those document back to the U.S. public in an effort to  influence the U.S. election as also being a criminal act.

If a person was aware that criminal actions like that were taking place,  that a theft had happened, that the proceeds of that theft were going to be  used to commit another crime -- if somebody was made aware of that, is just  that awareness itself, does that create some sort of responsibility? Do  you have to go to the authorities with it? If you cheer for that action  without doing anything to stop it, is that also potentially criminal  liability? Do you actively have to be helping and be part of what they`re  doing in their criminal acts to be part of a conspiracy?

Where is the line in terms of just bad behavior versus getting indicted?

SCHIFF: Yes. Well, one of the reasons that I`ve used the term collusion rather than a conspiracy to violate sections such and such and such and such, is the bar shouldn`t be set so low as to what was a crime. It ought 
to be if the Trump campaign was aware of what the Russians were doing, had a preview of what the Russians were doing, urged the Russians to do it -- you had Donald Trump speaking publicly, hey, Russians, if you`re listening, hack Hillary Clinton`s e-mails. You`ll be richly rewarded.

If that message had gotten to the candidate and the candidate is egging  them on, whether it`s a crime or not, it ought to be condemned by the whole  country, Democrats and Republicans alike.

Now, what does it take to prove a case or indict a case? I think there has  to be a meeting of the minds between the campaign and the Russians. OK,  we`re going to do this. There has to be some overt act. Not necessarily  an overt act on the part of the Trump campaign`s part but there has to be  an agreement.

And I think what bob Mueller may be looking at and weighing is if you  compare this to Watergate, there was a lot of evidence of Nixon`s  involvement in Watergate. Even insiders like Dean who spoke in voluminous  detail about conversations with the president, it was the recordings that  made the difference, though, that gave the Congress and the country enough  evidence that warranted his removal.

Bob Mueller may be trying to weigh what does it take in this kind of  environment to prove this kind of a case. But I don`t think we should set  the bar so low. That`s Bob Mueller`s job. It`s our job to tell the  country what happened, to protect the country from it happening again, but  also to condemn unethical conduct, whether it meets the standard of  conspiracy or not.

MADDOW: Well, condemn it and -- yeah, potentially bring about some sort of  accountability for it. And that`s a different standard in terms of  congressional investigation than it is for this criminal investigation that  Mueller is doing.

Congressman Adam Schiff, top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee,  working on a committee that seems to be pulling apart at the seams right  now, but hanging in there -- thank you so much for being with us, sir.  It`s really good to have you here.

SCHIFF: Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source