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

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

O`DONNELL: There has been a contagion of cowardice in Congress, that`s what California Congressman Adam Schiff told his constituents in Pasadena yesterday in a meeting about gun violence. In his New York Times column today Paul Krugman noted quote, "Republicans have blocked any effective control over sales of assault weapons." At the end of that column, Paul Krugman examined where the Republican Party`s opposition to sane gun regulation has left us. Quote "In effect then the Republican Party decided that a few massacres were an acceptable price to pay in return for tax cuts. I wish that were hyperbole, but the continuing refusal of GOP figures to criticize Trump even after El Paso shows that it`s the literal truth." Joining our discussion now is Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff, California. He is the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for joining us tonight. Talk about what you identified as the contagion of cowardice. How does that express itself in the Congress and what are the results?

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): Well I think we`ve always known that courage is contagious, but we`re also saying that so is cowardice. There are any number of my GOP colleagues who will express their private misgivings about the President, about how divisive he is, about how he`s tearing down our institutions. But they refuse to speak out about it. They refuse to have vote in a way that would put a check on the President. This goes to his racist vile, this goes to common sense and gun safety legislation. I mean, the GOP members of Congress understand just as the Democrats do, it makes no sense to have a system where you can go into a gun store and be turned down, because you`re a felon and go out and buy that same gun off the back of someone`s truck perfectly legally. They understand the same facts that we do, but they`re unwilling to speak out. They`re unwilling to risk an angry tweet. They`re unwilling to risk the ire, not even of the NRA members, but the NRA leadership, getting a bad grade from the NRA. And I don`t know how to describe that other than a contagion of cowardice. I don`t know why they`re there faced with these tragedies if they`re unwilling to do something about it, when they know what`s right.

O`DONNELL: I want to ask you about this as a former prosecutor yourself. What changes in law, other than gun regulation, other than banning assault weapons as California`s senior senator was able to do during the 1990s -Dianne Feinstein got that push through. What about in prosecutions of cases like this well? I think we should think about having a domestic terrorism statute that parallels the statute basically that bars international terror. The kind that we`re used to thinking about in terms of ISIS or Al-Qaeda inspired terror. Not only to put this on a par, which it should be. We now have about the same number of people killed since 9/11 in these domestic often white supremacist oriented hate crimes. But also it gives you the ability to prosecute some of the supporting crimes, the providing material support to terror which would not be available in a domestic terrorism case. It also, I think, gives the same priority and stigma to these crimes as any other form of terrorism. In our bill this year the Intelligence Authorization Act, we demand an annual report on domestic terrorism. We have been working with the intelligence agencies - the NCTC, Department of Homeland Security, FBI to find out are they devoting the resources to this, are they looking for the trends, are we thinking about in the same comprehensive way that we have fought since 9/11 about dealing with the ISIS and Al-Qaeda inspired terror.

O`DONNELL: Domestically, this is primarily in in federal terms FBI jurisdiction and we have reports that 80% of the FBI`s attention in this arena is focused on the foreign inspired terrorists, not the domestic inspired terrorists.

SCHIFF: I think that`s right, but I think it`s changing. And we heard Director Wray say recently just how many domestic terrorism investigations are ongoing right now, and what a growing problem this is. But even while we recognize that, a lot of this is domestic - in the sense these are homegrown terrorists with a homegrown agenda. They`re also influenced by overseas like-minded people.The shooter in Christchurch was influenced in these dark online chat rooms. The same chat rooms that some of the domestic shooters the United States have been inspired by so. There is a transnational element to this. In the same way that people have been inspired to act out by ISIS propaganda, even though they weren`t under ISIS direction.

O`DONNELL: So just to clarify for the audience. There are limits to what investigative powers can be used in domestic cases. CIA can`t be involved. The NSA can`t be eavesdropping on conversations, for example. There is a wall there.

SCHIFF: There is. There is. But, nonetheless, even those agencies can look at the international dynamic that is those overseas that are pushing out this kind of white supremacist ideology, which is global in nature, so there is a role even for the intelligence agencies to play. But many actors like the FBI that have both an international and a domestic terrorist agenda and the lawful authority to investigate, they`re going to have to place a much higher priority on this.

O`DONNELL: Can you stay with us after a break?

SCHIFF: Of course.

O`DONNELL: Because I was asking more about where the investigations of the President are going and now that a majority of Democrats favor impeachment where the - where impeachment stands in the House. We`re going to be right back with Chairman Adam Schiff.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

O`DONNELL: Yesterday on "Morning Joe", Mike Barnicle asked Jerry Nadler, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over impeachment, about the possible calendar for impeachment and whether that might be blocked by the election calendar?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY): Well the calendar is whatever it is. We can`t let the election calendar dictate. I think that we will probably get Court decisions by the end of October or maybe thereafter we`ll get. We`ll have hearings in September and October with people we don`t - who are not dependent on that witness, which is not dependent on the Court proceedings and we`ll do it through the fall. And if we decide to report articles of impeachment we could get to that in the late fall perhaps - late - latter part of the year.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O`DONNELL: Democrat Congressman Adam Schiff is back with us. He is Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. What`s your reaction to what you heard Chairman Nadler say there?

SCHIFF: Well, I think that the reality is the Trump administration is trying to draw this out as long as possible to effectively bring about justice delayed being justice denied. And justice here being a potential impeachment of the President. We just see today actually the Justice Department weighing in the first - for first time in the Mazars litigation - the accounting litigation that the Committee chaired by Elijah Cummings is pursuing, basically making the Justice Department Donald Trump`s law firm. Weighing in in a way to support the President`s position that is not in the interests of the Department of Justice or the American people for that matter, but is in the interests of the person of Donald Trump. What are we going to do to confront that? I think the reality is if the litigation takes too long. That is if they are able to legally string this out too long, we will have to make a judgment about whether to go forward with articles of impeachment even in the absence of being able to bring these witnesses in and obtain these documents, because the obstruction of Congress itself will have risen to that level. So that`s a decision we may have to make this fall. We are already thinking, frankly, of the post-Watergate reforms that will come out of this Watergate. And one of them, I think, is going to have to be expedited court process when it comes to congressional oversight so that no future President can engage in this kind of dilatory tactic.

O`DONNELL: What about new legislation on independent counsels and creating an actual independent counsel as a - which - was the status that Robert Mueller did not have. Robert Mueller could have been fired by the President at any time during the investigation.

SCHIFF: Well, I think, we`re going to have to strengthen that law as well. And you`re absolutely right, Bill Barr made it clear in his confirmation testimony that in his view, the President could have made the Mueller investigation go away anytime he wanted, because he thought it was unfair. Which also means that all of those investigations that the Special Counsel rolled off to other elements of the Department of Justice or other U.S. Attorney`s Office, presumably, the President could make those go away. We are riding shotgun on that, trying to do our oversight of that, trying to make sure there`s no political interference in those cases. But we may be reliant on whistleblowers to come forward. But these are the issues we`re going to weigh when we get back from the recess. As you mentioned, there are now more than half of our caucus in favor of, at least, a formal inquiry. From my own point of view we are already, as far as the law is concerned, in a proceeding preliminary to a potential impeachment. We are already entitled to obtain the grand jury material. Now whether we go beyond that with a formal vote on an impeachment proceeding, our caucus will have to discuss. But we also may reach the point in the fall where we have to decide we just can`t take the time to let this play out in the courts, because that could take another year and a half. And from an evidentiary standpoint and especially as a former prosecutor as you look at it, in the over 400 pages of the Mueller report, are there pieces there that simply can be lifted directly into articles of impeachment?

SCHIFF: If they could. The Mueller report itself is not the evidence. Mueller`s testimony wasn`t the evidence. The evidence really was the witness testimony that was summarized in that report, and the documents that were summarized. That`s exactly what we`re trying to obtain. If we liken this to a criminal proceeding, I`d like to bring these witnesses before the grand jury and hear what they have to say directly, not rely on the FBI 302 or summary of what they have to say. But if we`re deprived of that - if the administration games it out and deprives us of the ability to do that, then we may have to think about whether the obstruction itself is an offense - an impeachable offense. But what is really at stake here at the end of the day in addition to holding this President accountable is, whether future Presidents can be held accountable. If this President can show that Congress`s oversight function is a paper tiger, it means that any future President can be as corrupt as they want and know that they can`t be held to account.

O`DONNELL: Chairman Adam Schiff, thank you very much for joining us tonight, really appreciate it.

SCHIFF: Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source