CNN "State of the Union" - Transcript: Interview With California Congressman Adam Schiff

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

TAPPER: That's as President Trump and his legal team are seizing on new questions about the Mueller probe after a judge said that Mueller's team is really after one goal, taking down President Trump.

Here now, Congressman Adam Schiff. He's Democrat of California, the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee.

Congressman Schiff, thanks for joining us.

You just heard the president touting that criticism from a federal judge about the investigation on Friday before the NRA, saying that Robert Mueller is ultimately only interested in evidence of wrongdoing by the president himself.

The president accurately quoted the judge and the CNN story about the judge. Is the judge wrong?

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D), CALIFORNIA: Well, I'm not sure that it is germane, for example, for the judge to be asking how much Bob Mueller has spent on the investigation.

It is appropriate to ask about the scope of what Bob Mueller is doing. But he is well within the scope of his jurisdiction in charging Manafort and Flynn and the others.

In particular, I think we have to recognize that Mueller works for the Justice Department. And any case that arises from the Russia investigation is either going to be prosecuted by him or it's going to be referred out to another attorney in the department. But it's going to be prosecuted.

And in a money laundering situation, here, where you have a Russian oligarch involved, and Manafort during the campaign trying to get money from this Russian oligarch and offering information on the campaign to get it, it is clearly within the scope of his responsibilities.

And if there is other money laundering that he learns about at the same time that may or may not involve Russians, then the issue for Rod Rosenstein and Bob Mueller is, does it make sense, is this part of a coherent money laundering conspiracy, to try that all in one case, rather than bifurcating it and have a separate prosecutor and a separate courtroom having to present much of the same evidence?

So, I think Mueller is well within his jurisdiction. I can understand the judge asking certain of these questions, although some seem to be non-germane to the legal issues involved. TAPPER: Well, with all due respect, sir, the judge is basically

saying to Mueller and Mueller's team, you don't really care about Manafort and money laundering. You're only trying this case to try to get Manafort to flip on President Trump and give incriminating information about President Trump.

Mueller could have referred -- as you suggested, he could have referred this case to another set of legal circumstances, as he did with the Michael Cohen case in the Southern District of New York U.S. attorney.

But the judge here is saying, you don't really care about this. You are just trying to get Trump and, for that reason, I'm wary of the case.

Doesn't that concern you, that a judge would think that?

[09:35:00]

SCHIFF: Well, it does concern me if it influences the judge's review of the facts and the law. That seems to be the judge questioning the motives of the special counsel.

Here, the special counsel, I'm sure in discussion and consultation with Rod Rosenstein, is deciding which of the cases that have arisen from his investigation he should try personally and which should be farmed out to others. That's how the process should work.

And while it's certainly within the judge's prerogative to ask threat questions, I don't think it really bears on the legal issues. And so I think that Bob Mueller will prevail, in the sense of being able to go forward with this litigation. I don't think there is really any legal question about that.

But, yes, it is concerning that the judge would express this opinion.

TAPPER: The president's lawyers have been wary of letting Mueller talk with President Trump. But sources tell CNN that Mueller has already raised the notion of a subpoena.

The president's lawyer Rudy Giuliani argued just this morning in an interview with ABC News that President Trump would not need to comply with any subpoena.

Is there any circumstance in the world in which President Trump could dodge the subpoena?

SCHIFF: No. He is going to need to comply with a subpoena. If they take that case to court, they are going to lose.

But, look, I have to say I'm a little taken aback by this new lawyer Giuliani's strategy here. His legal defense for the president seems to be a bit orthodox, and start out by saying, you can't believe the president of the United States. That is our defense. So, when he says things, you have just got to discount them, and, more than that, trust me, this wasn't a violation of campaign laws. Neither one of those things is pretty persuasive. And other things

that Giuliani said in his maiden voyage as the president's new lawyer were deeply hurtful of the president's case, by saying that the Russia investigation, the failure to clear him and announce publicly he wasn't a suspect is the reason why Comey was fired.

All of these things are deeply hurtful to the president's case. And notwithstanding the efforts at damage control, I think this is a very unpromising strategy.

TAPPER: I want to move to news that President Trump was reportedly aware of that hush money payment by Michael Cohen to Stormy Daniels, even though the president told reporters just last month that he didn't know about the deal or where the money had come from.

The president's lawyer Rudy Giuliani told "The New York Times" on Friday that this might be a political problem for President Trump, but it was not a legal problem.

You are a former federal prosecutor. Is there a legal issue here?

SCHIFF: Well, there is a legal issue, if the president, his credibility is thrown this much into question.

Then any statements that he might make in the future about what he knew or when he knew it or the purpose of these payments are not going to be believed by a trier of fact. So, it does affect his defense.

But, more broadly, Jake -- and this gets to point you were making with Kellyanne Conway -- what Kellyanne Conway and Sarah Huckabee Sanders and, before her, Sean Spicer are doing, in taking these abundant falsehoods that come out of the White House and trying to weave them into some alternate truth, is enormously corrosive of our democracy.

Quite separate and apart from the president's legal jeopardy, just calling into the question there's -- whether there is an objective truth is so damaging to our democracy.

And I think that the president and his staff do a tremendous disservice to the country when they just weave fib after fib and try to feed it to the American public.

TAPPER: Well, that is the political question. But, of course, it is not against the law to lie to the American people.

In terms of the law, here is what it says -- quote -- "A loan is a contribution at the time it is made and is a contribution to the extent that it remains unpaid. A loan, to the extent it is repaid, is no longer a contribution."

We are now told by Rudy Giuliani that President Trump paid Michael Cohen back. Plus, he has already reported millions in donations to his own campaign, which he's allowed to do.

What is the legal problem here? I understand the political problem. I understand the corrosive to American discourse and democracy problem, but what is the legal problem?

SCHIFF: The legal problem for the president is, telling false statements about this is evidence of a consciousness of guilt.

Why would the president be issuing false statements about what he knew and when he knew it and what he said on the plane? Seemed abundantly clear he was denying knowledge of this payment, both past and present. Why would he be doing that unless he was aware that what he had done was wrong, what he had done was a violation of campaign law?

So, that is the legal jeopardy for the president. Yes, he can lie to the public, and he can't be charged with lying to the public. Now, if he lies to Bob Mueller, it is a different story.

But these public statements by the president that are demonstrably false do demonstrate some consciousness of guilt. And if I were the prosecutor in the case, I would certainly introduce these false statements as evidence against the president.

TAPPER: Congressman Adam Schiff, Democrat of California, always good to see you, sir. Thanks so much. Appreciate it.

SCHIFF: Thanks, Jake.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source