CNN "The Situation Room" - Transcript: Interview With Congressman Adam Schiff

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

BLITZER: Great reporting, Jamie. Thank you very much. And good work on getting that book that is obviously key to all of this.

Our Jamie Gangel reporting for us.

Let's get some more on all of this.

Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff of California is joining us. He's the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee.

Congressman, thanks so much for joining us.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D), CALIFORNIA: Good to be with you, Wolf.

BLITZER: All right, we got lots to discuss. Let's go through it point by point.

Bob Woodward reports that top White House advisers were so concerned about the president that they would actually steal documents off the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office before he could see them or sign them. Have you ever heard of a situation like that?

SCHIFF: No, I haven't.

And I think if you look at the portrait that is painted of the president in this book, you couldn't have a portrait of someone that was more unfit for the office of president than Donald Trump, someone who is described essentially as incapable of telling the truth, who lacks the knowledge and comprehension -- comprehension and judgment to put the national security interests of the country first, who risked getting us into war potentially.

This is quite a damning portrait, and I think what is most damning about it is, none of it is that surprising. So much of it is consistent with what we have heard and seen of this president since his first days in office.

And, for me, it underscores why it's all the more important that Congress serve as a check, that we not have this rubber stamp that the Congress is today.

BLITZER: Woodward reports that the chief of staff called President Trump an idiot. The defense secretary, James Mattis, described the president as having the understanding the fifth- or sixth-grader.

We just put a graphic up on the screen, John Kelly saying that the president is an idiot or unhinged, according to the book. The defense secretary, James Mattis, says he behaves like a fifth- or sixth- grader, has that kind of understanding of national security.

[18:15:10] Rex Tillerson, the fired secretary of state, says the president was a F'ing moron. Gary Cohn, the top economic adviser to the president, according to the book, called the president a professional liar. And John Dowd, the former personal attorney for the president, called the president an F'ing liar again.

Those are the president's current and former advisers. You hear that, that's got to be so concerning to you.

SCHIFF: Well, it absolutely is.

And if you look at some of the areas that are of most profound concern to us, you look at the situation the Korean Peninsula, and you have his aides and Cabinet members essentially removing documents, preventing him from doing things that would jeopardize our national security.

You have him completely relying on his egotistical sense of self, that he can somehow dominate, win over Kim Jong-un, where it appears that Kim Jong-un has eaten his lunch, because he was so ill-prepared for the summit and the aftermath.

You have the situation in Afghanistan, where he's asking a general and Secretary Mattis, why can't we just kill people? That's just your job. Just we can kill our way out of this.

And, similarly, the discussion of killing Bashar al-Assad. The level of lack of sophistication, understanding, knowledge, judgment, and, most serious, his unwillingness to learn from those around him who know more really threatens our national security.

BLITZER: What does it tell you, Congressman, that according to Woodward's reporting, the president's former lawyer John Dowd and current lawyer Jay Sekulow tried to explain to the special counsel, Robert Mueller, that the president was simply incapable of testifying without perjuring himself?

SCHIFF: Not at all a surprise.

From the very beginning, they viewed any interview that this president would give us a perjury trap. Now, why is that? Because they think there's going to be some trick question? No, because they know this president is incapable of telling the truth. And we have seen that in the fabrications that have now been catalogued, thousands of them since his first day in office.

And it all to me gets back to the same fundamental flaw. And that is this president lacks character. And we are finding out in spades, and have over the last year-and-a-half, just how much character matters in the highest office in the land, because, when you lack it, that flaw is spread throughout the whole of government.

And, as you say, Wolf, these are recollections coming from, in large part, people who are survivors in the Trump White House, that are continuing to work with him, all of whom are hired by him. But it shows that those who know him best see the character flaws most up front and in-depth.

And, again, me, it says we need a Congress that is going to be willing to stand up to him, that's going to be willing to check the dangerous impulses that Bob Woodward so often writes about.

BLITZER: Woodward reports that John Dowd, the president's former lawyer, put it to the president this way after that trial, that Q&A session that they practiced: "Don't testify. It's either that or an orange jumpsuit."

John Dowd today, he denied that. But should Robert Mueller, Congressman, subpoena the president and force him to testify?

SCHIFF: I believe he should. And I have been saying this for months, as the Trump defense team has essentially strung along special counsel.

Look, I'm a strong believer the president is not above the law. You do not treat him differently than an ordinary citizen. You would not basically tell a defense lawyer, OK, I will go along with not interviewing your client because you tell me, essentially, he's a pathological liar.

That would never be sufficient to tell an investigator, no, you shouldn't interview, you have got to let him off the hook. He's just not capable of telling the truth.

Bob Mueller has got a job to do. And a big part of it is to report to Congress on whether the president has obstructed justice. And a key fact in that is whether the president had corrupt intent when he took certain actions like firing James Comey. And the best evidence of that is the opportunity to question the president.

BLITZER: All this comes a day after the president seemed to accuse the attorney general, Jeff Sessions, of using Justice Department investigations to influence the midterm elections.

You saw that tweet that he posted: "Two long-running Obama era investigations of two very popular Republican congressmen were brought to a well-publicized charge just ahead of the midterms by the Jeff Sessions Justice Department. Two easy wins now in doubt because there's not enough time. Good job, Jeff."

How do you -- how do you view that tweet?

[18:20:00]

SCHIFF: Well, again, this is the president talking about a case, two cases involving the first two Republican members of Congress, the two first members of Congress, period, to endorse Donald Trump.

And Donald Trump is nothing if not loyal. Whether people have broken the law, it doesn't matter, as we saw with Paul Manafort. What matters is, do you stick with Donald Trump?

And these two Republicans have stuck with Donald Trump, so he's sticking with them and using them as a cudgel to once again attack his attorney general and suggest that his attorney general should have either gone easy on them because they're Trump backers, not prosecuted them at all, or prosecuted them on a different timetable where it would have helped him politically.

Once again, the president showing that he believes the attorney general's job is to be his political hack. And one of the things I found so disturbing over the last two or three weeks is some of the members in this body, in the U.S. Congress, and in particular in the Senate, saying, that's OK with them.

And if he wants to get rid of Jeff Sessions as, you know, those that are basically evangelizing that on FOX News or telling him to do, that these Republican senators are more than fine with it, even though they know the president's problem with Jeff Sessions is not one of policy. It's that he won't make a criminal case go away that may implicate the president, and he won't persecute the president's political rivals.

And that anyone in this body would condone that kind of an attack on the rule of law, I just find a shocking. And it once again tells you, I think, what a rubber stamp this place has become.

BLITZER: There's more breaking news, Congressmen, coming into THE SITUATION ROOM.

I need you to stand by. We're going to continue this interview. We're going to get more on the explosive reporting in the new Bob Woodward book about the Trump White House, including the truly shocking terms the president used to describe the attorney general, Jeff Sessions.

Plus, the Trump tweet slamming Sessions over indictments against two Republican congressmen, was it an impeachable offense? I will speak to the -- to a former Justice Department spokesman.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:26:37]

BLITZER: We have more breaking news.

And we're back with Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

Congressman, "The New York Times" has just now reported that the special counsel, Robert Mueller, has told the president's lawyers that Mueller will accept written answers from President Trump about whether his campaign conspired with Russia and Russian interference in the election, but Mueller will not ask for written answers on possible obstruction of justice with the president, this according to "The New York Times."

What's your reaction to this report?

SCHIFF: Well, speaking as a former prosecutor, I can say written answers to questions are of very limited value.

I would never accept them as a substitute for an interview. They're completely inadequate for that. You don't have the ability to ask follow-up questions. The answers you're getting are really the lawyers' answers, as much as their client's answers.

If this is part of a bargain to get his interview on other aspects of the investigation and avoid the necessity of litigating it, it may be worth it. But if all you're getting are written answers to the questions, I think that is of very little value. And if this is being done in the hope that the president's legal team will later make him accessible for an interview, I wouldn't make a deal on written questions until I had a locked-in commitment on an oral interview, because that's, frankly, where you get to the truth.

BLITZER: Well, do you think Mueller will be able to interview the president on the issue of obstruction of justice?

SCHIFF: I would be very surprised if he's able to do that, unless he subpoenas him. And I think if Mueller does subpoena the president, and the White House fights it, that the White House loses, and that may be the only way Bob Mueller gets an interview.

And I think it's worth pursuing it. And I think that was -- that's probably the most sensible course, if you need to know what the president's intent was when he took certain actions that look a lot like obstruction of justice.

BLITZER: When you say the White House loses, there would be a legal battle, and potentially it could go all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, right?

SCHIFF: That's exactly right.

And, of course, that's why the hearings going on in this building are so important, because Kavanaugh has written, apparently had an epiphany after working on the Ken Starr team, that presidents are busy people and shouldn't be subject to investigation.

He also obviously takes a very critical view now of an investigation involving an ongoing president. And that may color his judgment on the subpoena question. But I think the law is sufficiently clear that, nonetheless, he would lose, even with this court and even with Kavanaugh on it.

But, of course, there's no guarantee of that. And that may be why there's a negotiation over, well, we will accept written answers to some questions. But I hope they're getting the commitment to the oral interview as a part of that bargain.

Otherwise, they just need to issue the subpoena and fight it out. I think that's the only way to get to the truth.

BLITZER: Why do you think it's taken this long, what, eight, nine months, to get to this point, maybe written answers to some questions, but maybe leaving open the possibility of an oral interview on others?

SCHIFF: Well, I think it's entirely possible that, in the beginning, when the Trump legal team was in a cooperative mode, they perhaps believed, the lawyers believed the client and the client's protestations of what he did and what he intended to do and what he knew.

But, as they learned more, they learned that his explanations were inconsistent with the facts, and there was more jeopardy in putting him before someone in which -- you know, lying to "The New York Times" or to CNN is one thing.

As the president has told us, who cares if he lies to the public, he's basically said. It's not like lying to a magistrate. Well, lying to Mueller is like lying to a magistrate.

[18:30:22] So they clearly adopted a different strategy. And I think for several months now, the Trump legal team has decided that time is on their side if they can delay and delay and delay and at the same time blame Mueller for the lengthy investigation, that's a winning public relations strategy.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Congressman Adam Schiff, thank you so much for joining us.

SCHIFF: Thank you, Wolf.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source