MSNBC "The Rachel Maddow Show" - Transcript: Interview with Rep. Adam Schiff

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

MADDOW:  Tonight, we got a joint statement from the six Democratic committee chairs in the House who have equities in this fight, from Intelligence, Judiciary, Oversight, Finance, Foreign Affairs and Ways and Means.  Quote: The Justice Department must now release to the public the entire report submitted by special counsel Mueller to the attorney general, to ensure Congress can general to ensure Congress can discharge its constitutional responsibilities, we also expect the underlying evidence uncovered during the course of the special counsel`s investigation will be turned over to the relevant committees of Congress upon request.  The underlying evidence. 
 
To be clear, if the special counsel has reason to believe that the president has engaged in criminal or other serious misconduct, then the Justice Department has an obligation not to conceal such information.  Because the Justice Department maintains that a sitting president cannot be indicted to then with hold evidence of wrongdoing from Congress because a sitting president cannot be charged is to convert Justice Department policy into the means for a cover-up.  Anything less than full transparency would raise serious questions about whether the department of justice policy is being used as a pretext for a cover-up of misconduct.
 
Strong words from those six Democratic committee chairs tonight, demanding not only the report itself but underlying evidence to be handed over to the relevant committees. 
 
Joining us now is Congressman Adam Schiff, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee in the House.  Sir, it is great to have you with us tonight.  Thank you for being here. 
 
I just have to ask you top line what you make of this development today.  Attorney General Barr`s letter, what he has explained and what it suggests to you about the process. 
 
REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA), CHAIRMAN, INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE:  What I make of it is this is the logical conclusion of the special counsel`s work, that other aspects of the investigation will be farmed out to either main justice or the southern district or other elements of the Justice Department.  But he`s finished his core responsibility and now he`s made a fulsome report, and that report needs to be made public.  The attorney general committed to making as much of it public as was consistent with law or policy.  If he`s true to that that means the entire thing. 
 
And we`re going to insist upon it.  And as the letter that you quoted points out, of perhaps even greater importance, the Congress is going to need the underlying evidence because some of that evidence may go to the compromise of the president or people around him that poses a real threat to our national security and we need to know it if that`s the case. 
 
MADDOW:  As the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, you in particular as chair but you and all of your colleagues on that committee, deal with very sensitive information all the time and there are protocols for those, for that committee that there aren`t for any other part of Congress because of the sensitivity of material that you`re entrusted -- with which you`re entrusted.  Given that, given your training in that matter, given your experience with that, given how seriously you take that, I wonder if there`s anything you can imagine might be in this report that really can`t go broadly to Congress, that can`t go especially to the public, if there`s anything with intelligence matters -- that relates to intelligence matters that you would be sympathetic to keeping under wraps, either just being briefed to your committee or just being held within the Justice Department. 
 
SCHIFF:  There may very well be things in the report that would require minor redactions that might go to a source of information gathered by an intel agency.  I wouldn`t be surprised frankly if Bob Mueller left those specific source references out of the report.  They wouldn`t be necessary to the report. 
 
But those redactions could be made.  It`s also fair to point out that the Justice Department has declassified information when it felt it was in the public interest, and indeed declassified FISA application material in the current Mueller investigation even while that investigation was on going.  So, yes, there could be very small things.
 
But I think the most important point is this investigation began as a counterintelligence investigation, not a criminal investigation.  It went to look at the question of whether people were acting as agents of a foreign power.  That information needs to be made public and if we need to do by redacting information that we do that, if we can declassify information in the interest of transparency and not sacrifice methods, then we should do that, too. 
 
MADDOW:  What are you going to do if Barr says no?  I mean, if William Barr says this report has been submitted to me, I have the one copy of this report.  I believe that the principal conclusion should be briefed and as far as I`m concerned, the principle conclusions are these are the people indicted and other than that, there is no Justice Department responsibility to pass anything else on.  I don`t care about public clamor, I don`t care about statements about what I must do from anybody, I`m just going to sit on all of the rest of it. 
 
I mean, presumably subpoenaing the report, subpoenaing Mr. Mueller himself, subpoenaing other people involved in the investigation, ultimately those subpoenas get enforced through the Justice Department, don`t they?  I mean, if William Barr decided he would dig in his heels and let none of this out, it`s hard to figure out what leverage could be used against him. 
 
SCHIFF:  Well, the Congress has considerable leverage and certainly we would begin by requesting the voluntary production of information and move to subpoenas that and move to court enforcement and think about other means of pressuring the department to be transparent.  But it will be unsustainable for the Justice Department to take that position. 
 
In the last Congress, Rachel, the Justice Department provided over 880,000 pages of discovery of evidence to the Republican Congress in the answer to subpoenas that in an investigation that the Clinton e-mail investigation in which no one was indicted.  Information about Hillary Clinton, about Bruce Ohr, about Andy McCabe, about Lisa Page and Peter Strzok. 
 
So, for the department to maintain they never provide information in cases that doesn`t result in an indictment is simply not true and 880,000 pages demonstrate that.  They did so because there was an intense public interest and need to know and because Congress insisted.  And the case for public disclosure here with allegations that are far more serious is much more compelling. 
 
In the case of Hillary Clinton who did not win the election, she was not in a position to cover up through the Justice Department any evidence of wrongdoing.  This president is and this president there is I think all too much evidence has tried to interfere, has tried to obstruct and for that reason, it is all the more incumbent on the Justice Department to be even more transparent.  So, if we go to court, the Justice Department losses. 
 
But more than that, if they fight this, they damage the department`s reputation and I think the same way that the Supreme Court when it decided Bush v. Gore and threw out decades of precedent caused the public to view the Supreme Court as potentially just another partisan institution.  Should Barr adopt the double standard here, it would likewise damage the reputation of the department and ultimately be unsuccessful. 
 
MADDOW:  Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff -- sir, I know this is an incredibly busy time and a fraught time for you with all these different things to consider in terms of how you`re moving forward.  Thank you for taking time to walk us through tonight.  Really appreciate you being here, sir.  Good luck. 
 
SCHIFF:  Thank you. 

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source