MSNBC "The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell" - Transcript: Interview with Rep. Adam Schiff

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

O`DONNELL: And we`re joined now in our discussion by Democratic  Congressman Adam Schiff of California. He is the ranking member of the  House Intelligence Committee.

And, Congressman Schiff, you`re here to talk about other things. We will  get to some of those. But I need to get your reaction tonight to what  you`ve just heard.

The president of the United States as a candidate for president two months  before the election in a conversation with his personal lawyer about  creating a company to make payments to silence a woman who claims she had a  one-year relationship with Donald Trump.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D), CALIFORNIA: Well, Lawrence, what leaps out at me as  a former prosecutor are a few things that seem apparent. The first is  quite obvious. The president had knowledge that they were going to be  making these payments.

So, Giuliani`s earlier claim was patently false, that the president didn`t  know about this at the time. Clearly, he has knowledge. He`s not  surprised at all when this topic`s brought up.

Second, it`s brought up in the context of things they need to make go away  until the election. So, they talk about the divorce proceedings and the  president says, well, you only need to make that go away for four weeks and  Cohen says, don`t worry, it will go away for longer than that. And that`s  the context in which this is brought up.

So, it`s an effort to basically prevent voters from getting this  information. And that`s important as to the issue of was this a campaign  expenditure. And, finally, I would say on the issue of an expenditure for  the campaign, the whole purpose of setting up this company to make this  payment is to conceal the payment.

So, to me, whether it`s cash or check is less material than the fact  they`re using this organizational structure to hide the payment. If they  were planning on reporting it as a campaign expenditure, there would be no  need to set up that company. So to me as a prosecutor, former prosecutor,  I`d say you have evidence of knowledge, you have of an intent to violate  the campaign laws, you have evidence that this was about concealing  information for a campaign purpose.

So, that`s how I think that the prosecutors would look at this.

O`DONNELL: And to add some campaign context to the discussion that we hear  on this tape, it begins. Michael Cohen`s portion of the tape begins with  him talking about poll numbers in the presidential campaign. He opens it  up as a campaign discussion. The next thing he talks about is troubling  information that the "New York Times" is trying to obtain about President  Trump`s first divorce, his first divorce from his first wife.

The president said -- and they talk about how we only have to get by the  next two months with this. That same timing issue was present in the  conversation about the president`s first divorce. So, there seems to be  very clear campaign focus in this conversation.

SCHIFF: I think that is abundantly clear. I also think, you know, in  terms of who brings up cash this is Giuliani trying to get out ahead of  this very damaging tape by characterizing it or trying to create a doubt in  the public mind where as if people just heard that tape without his preview there wouldn`t be any question that it`s Donald Trump who at least appears on this tape to be suggesting that they make the payment in cash.

O`DONNELL: What does this do to complicate the president`s position in  considering an interview with Robert Mueller?

SCHIFF: Well, I don`t think this really has that much bearing on that  question. I think that the president`s legal team has already concluded  there`s no way they`re going to put him in front of someone where if he  lies, he could be held criminally liable. They just can`t have any  confidence that he could get through a whole interview without making false  statements, particularly on the subject of Russia or obstruction of  justice.

So, we see this moving playing field with Giuliani saying, well, first we`d  need this to put him forth for an interview, then we`d need that. The most  -- latest preposterous proposal is we`ll let you ask about collusion but  not about obstruction, we`ll let you ask him questions that he can only  answer no collusion, no collusion, no collusion, but beyond that that`s the  length and breadth of what we`re willing to submit.

The bottom line is if Mueller wants to interview him he needs to issue a  subpoena. That`s the only way that`s going to happen.

O`DONNELL: And what would you -- what would you expect to happen next? If  Robert Mueller knows that the president is never going to actually in a  cooperative way sit down for an interview, which I assume by now he`s  figured out, he`s seen the Giuliani game played as far as it can go, what  do you -- how does Robert Mueller make the tactical decision of do I  subpoena this president?

SCHIFF: Well, look, I think that the Mueller team has probably concluded  and I think they would be right, if they do subpoena him they win that  court case. But it takes time. And the White House view, and they may not  be wrong about this, time is working on their side. The longer they can  draw this out while appearing to blame Mueller for, it the longer in the  public mind the Russia investigation has been going on and the more  appetite there is for the president`s argument it`s time to bring this to  an end.

So, Mueller isn`t away fighting the clock. And is he prepared to use up  the amount of time it would take to litigate this? How much value does he  think he would get from that presidential interview? I assume that`s what  he`s debating.

There`s a finite number of witnesses on the obstruction issue. And by now,  I would imagine Mueller has interviewed almost all of them. It`s not like  the conspiracy or collusion issue in which there are witnesses all over the  globe. This is a discrete number, and I think the decision he`s trying to  make is, is this something we want to try to present to the Justice  Department in the next month prior to the blackout period or are we  prepared to litigate this and push it until after the election?

O`DONNELL: One final point on the subpoena question. You said that Robert  Mueller has every reason to believe that if he issues the subpoena he wins  after the president appeals the issuance of the subpoena. That appeal  could conceivably go to what would be a Supreme Court where there are two  Trump justices.
Would a prosecutor today be as confident of winning with a Supreme Court  that could include Justice Kavanaugh?

SCHIFF: Well, there would certainly be reason for more concern than there  should be. You know, the precedent I think is fairly clear. But you have  someone who`s been very outspoken, that is, Kavanaugh, about presidential  power, about how presidents should not be to investigation or prosecution  while they`re in office, someone who`s talked about overturning the very  precedents that we`re talking about.

So, you know, it certainly seems very realistic to imagine that this is why  Donald Trump picked this judge. Of all of the candidates that the  Federalist Society put forward, he picked the one most likely to rule in  his favor in any dispute between he and the special counsel should it get  to the Supreme Court.
But I still think he wins, that is, social counsel wins if this goes to  litigation because the precedent is simply too clear.

O`DONNELL: Congressman Adam Schiff, thank you very much for joining our  breaking news coverage tonight. Really appreciate it.

SCHIFF: Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source