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

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

TAPPER: Imagine, one day, we look back on the first two years of the Trump White House as the calm before the storm.

House Democrats are already lining up to investigate the president, his campaign, his business dealings in the new year. And President Trump just offered Democrats a new thread, according to exclusive CNN reporting, by venting to his acting attorney general about being implicated in Michael Cohen's federal crimes.

Here with me is the incoming chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Congressman Adam Schiff of California.

Congressman, thanks so much for being here. Appreciate it. Happy Hanukkah to you.

I want to start with the news that President Trump has at least twice expressed his frustration to Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker over why Whitaker hasn't done more to control federal prosecutors in New York.

You called this wrong, unethical, inexcusable.

Now, the president's defenders will say, this is just the president venting; as long as Whitaker doesn't take any action, there's no reason to be concerned.

What's your response?

SCHIFF: My response is, this is just the president ignoring the rule of law, ignoring decades of precedent and policy.

This is exactly what we feared about Whitaker's appointment, that he was picked not because he was qualified for the job -- he really isn't -- but he was picked because he was auditioning on TV talking down the Mueller investigation talking about he could -- how we could privately cripple the Mueller investigation.

So Trump chooses him, and then he doesn't appear to do exactly what the president wants, at least not yet, while he was seeking an ethics opinion, which we now learned he has ignored, because the ethics lawyers told him that he should not participate, should not supervise this investigation, that the public wouldn't have confidence in his judgments.

And now we learn that they're discussing the case. The president of the United States is discussing a case in which he is implicated with the attorney general.

That is wrong at every level. And, of course, it will taint anything that this acting attorney general does, any role he plays in this investigation.

This is a real assault on the rule of law. And we are going to scrutinize every single action by Matt Whitaker to make sure that the public knows just what he does.

TAPPER: All right, you said two things that I want to dive deeper into.

One of them has to do with Whitaker not recusing himself from overseeing the special counsel's investigation. You noted the Department of Justice Ethics Department did suggest that he does recuse himself.

But I have to point out, they also said it was a close call and -- quote -- "Credible arguments can be made either way" and that -- quote -- "There was no actual conflict of interest that would bar the acting attorney general from supervising the special counsel investigation."

Why should he remove himself if there's no actual conflict of interest?

SCHIFF: Because you're required to remove yourself when there's an appearance of a conflict of interest.

It's not just whether you have an actual conflict. But if the public can have confidence in what you do, that undermines the public faith in our justice system.

So, when I was a ground-level assistant U.S. attorney, I would have had to step aside from anything in which it appeared that I was acting improper, whether I was acting improper or not.

That same principle ought to apply in spades to the top person in the Department of Justice. And the fact that it was a close call doesn't make it any better. The ethics lawyers are saying, OK, this is a close call, but we recommend that you recuse yourself.

And we're not just talking about a garden-variety case here. We're talking about the highest-profile case in the Department of Justice, one that, more than any other, will help form Americans' opinions about whether they can really trust that the Justice Department is following the rule of law.

TAPPER: You said last week that -- quote -- "Every argument the Justice Department has made for putting Michael Cohen in jail applies to Donald Trump" -- unquote.

What exactly are you saying with that? Are you suggesting that the prosecutors in the Southern District of New York should indict a sitting president?

SCHIFF: Well, I'm suggesting a couple of things.

First, if they have proof that Individual 1 directed and coordinated this scheme...

TAPPER: Well, they have asserted as much.

SCHIFF: They have asserted as much.

If they can prove it, then what is the argument to be made that Michael Cohen, a lesser player in that scheme, should go to jail, that the rich and powerful can't be allowed to operate by a separate rule, and the argument that Donald Trump somehow should escape justice?

[09:35:03]

That just doesn't square. Now...

TAPPER: Well, there is an -- you know this, but there's an -- just for people at home, there's an Office of Legal Counsel memo in the Department of Justice. I think it dates back to the Nixon years, but maybe I'm wrong.

But it states that a sitting president should not be indicted. That's not a rule. It's not a law. But it's a suggestion from the Justice Department.

SCHIFF: Well, two things.

First of all, I was discussing what might happen when he leaves office.

TAPPER: OK.

SCHIFF: But I think, actually, when you look at the OLC opinions, there is a very powerful case to be made that you can indict a sitting president.

It's more difficult to make the case that they should be tried while they're in office, because that would very disruptive of the president's responsibilities. But the only argument -- and it was really not the focus of attention in those prior OLC opinions -- the only argument was made was that it would stigmatize the president.

TAPPER: Mm-hmm.

SCHIFF: Well, the Justice Department already crossed that Rubicon when they said Individual Number One, the president, was implicated in these two crimes. So, that has already -- that bar has already been passed.

The bigger issue for me is, does the statute of limitations run on this? Is the president able, by staying in office, to somehow evade justice entirely?

And the interest of the justice system in making sure that doesn't happen, I think, outweighs any additional stigma that an indictment would bring.

TAPPER: You know the president's lawyers have said they might try to block special counsel Robert Mueller's report from becoming public by claiming executive privilege. If that happens, and it's blocked from the public seeing it, one

course of action might be for Congress to subpoena the report, to then make it public.

You are about to have subpoena power. You're about to be the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Is that something that you're prepared to do?

SCHIFF: I'm prepared to make sure we do everything possible so that the public has the advantage of as much of the information as it can. And...

TAPPER: That sounds like a yes.

SCHIFF: That -- well, that pretty much is a yes, from my point of view...

TAPPER: OK.

SCHIFF: .... that we ought to make sure this report is public. Now, there may be parts of the report that have to be redacted because they involve classified information or they involve grand jury material.

But here's the thing. For the last two years, I have been warning the Justice Department, as they have been turning over tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of pages of investigative files in the Clinton e-mail investigation, that whatever precedent they were going to set, they were going to have to live by, which means that, when the Mueller investigation is over, they're not going to be in a position to say, we're not going to provide information to Congress about this investigation.

So, they have already decided that's the precedent they're going to live by. And, at the end of the day, this is just -- this case is just too important to keep from the American people what it's really about.

And particularly when we have had questionable characters like Matt Whitaker at the top, there's all the greater need for transparency here.

TAPPER: One last quick question, if possible.

Your committee voted earlier this week to provide the transcript of Roger Stone's interview with the House Intelligence Committee to special counsel Mueller. There's a suspicion that Stone may have lied before your committee. I know you're not going to go in detail about what you think he lied about, potentially.

You're also looking at the testimonies of Donald Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner. Have you found inconsistencies in either of their testimonies?

SCHIFF: Well, first of all, I can't confirm whether we have provided any materials to the special counsel.

TAPPER: Mm-hmm.

SCHIFF: But I have stated for quite some time that I thought we should provide transcripts really of all of the witnesses to allow him to determine who has been truthful and who has not. I don't want to itemize all of those that I have serious questions about.

The reality is, though, that Mueller is in a better position to make those decisions about perjury than I am, because he has the benefit of information that I don't. But I have sufficient concerns where I think we should definitely take step with all of the transcripts.

TAPPER: With all the transcripts?

SCHIFF: Yes.

TAPPER: You have concerns with all the transcripts?

SCHIFF: Well, I have concerns about several witnesses. But I do think that the special counsel ought to have the advantage of both the evidence that we have accumulated, but also the ability to prosecute those that have come before our committee and lied.

TAPPER: All right, Congressman Adam Schiff, soon-to-be Chairman Adam Schiff, thanks for being here. Happy Hanukkah. Happy new year to you and your family. Thanks for being here.

We will see a lot more of you in 2019.

SCHIFF: Thanks.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source