MSNBC "The Rachel Maddow Show" - Transcript: "The list of lawmakers supporting impeachment."

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

MADDOW: That`s the president today citing the penalty for treason, which, of course, is execution, while talking not only the whistleblower himself or herself but about the supreme working inside the White House and the U.S. government who provided this whistleblower information for his or her complaint. You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart, right? The spies and treason, we used to handle it a little differently than we do now. I`m sure the White House will try to pass that off as the president joking around. You can hear from -- I don`t usually play sound of the president. I put those things in a file marked the president says thing. But I think it`s worth hearing the actual tone of the president when he made those remarks today to make sure he was not joking. It`s the president threatening today that anybody that gave this whistleblower this information ought to be executed. I mean, let the record show that two days ago, the House of Representatives formally announced impeachment proceedings against the president on the basis of this very scandal. These people that he`s talking about, any government officials or White House officials who provided information to the whistleblower who brought this scandal to light, those people are going to be the witnesses in the impeachment proceeding or they are likely to be prospective witnesses in the impeachment proceeding against the president, which is now underway. Which means that today, this afternoon, as a matter of law, the president was threatening witnesses in the impeachment proceeding against him with death, with execution, and I know the president has said he could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot someone and nothing would happen to him for it. Sort of getting closer and closer to a real life test of what we hoped was a hyperbolic antidote. Under William Barr, it should be noted, the position of the Justice Department right now is not only that the president can`t be indicted if he commits a crime, the position of the Justice Department under William Barr is that the president can`t even be subject to the criminal process. He cannot even be criminally investigated no matter what he does or how many people know about it or see him do it. So with the president threatening at this closed press event today that whoever gave this whistleblower information about his own behavior ought to be executed, I mean, one thing that`s -- that`s intimidation of witnesses involved in a federal investigation. That`s a crime. Presumably he believes he can`t by definition commit a crime. I mean, not to get too weird, but if the president decided he knows who those people are and he decides he wants to carry out that sentence himself -- I mean, would the Justice Department have a problem with that? What if he did it openly on the South Lawn, right, in front of Pat Cipollone, the White House counsel, and Bill Barr, the attorney general? He`s out there killing somebody, right? This is how we deal with spies and treason. What would the Bill Barr Justice Department do with that information, right? If the president believes it is OK to threaten the witnesses in an impeachment investigation that has just been launched two days ago and the lawyers of the Trump administration are telling him no matter what he does, he`s immune from investigation, let alone prosecution, I mean, the worst case scenario here really is bonkers. But that`s what happens when the Justice Department takes the kind of position that it has and you have got a president like this willing to take advantage of it. The chairman of the Foreign Affairs and Intelligence and Oversight Committees tonight has just released a new statement in response to this threat from the president today. Quote: President Trump is fully aware that our committees are seeking testimony from this whistleblower and others referenced in this whistleblower`s complaint released today as part of the House`s impeachment inquiry. Our nation`s laws prohibit efforts to discourage, intimidate or otherwise pressure a witness not to provide testimony to Congress. No officials with knowledge relevant to the committee`s investigation, including knowledge of the subject of the whistleblower complaint maybe subject to any intimidation, reprisal or threat of reprisal. And all witnesses must be made available for congressional testimony. The president`s comments today constitute reprehensible witness intimidation and an attempt to obstruct Congress`s impeachment inquiry. We condemn the president`s attacks and we invite our Republican counterparts to do the same because Congress must do all it can to protect this whistleblower and all whistleblowers. Threats of violence from the leader of country have a chilling effect on the entire whistleblower process, with grave consequences for our democracy and our national security. Or in other words, Mr. President, what you just did today threatening the witnesses, that`s another article that we`re going to vote on in your impeachment. Congratulations. But the shocking news today, I find it alarming sort of, but not surprising -- can those things coexist? That the president made these threats against the witness already, right? The big, unexpected news today that we got from the whistleblower`s complaint was something that we really hadn`t had any inkling of otherwise and we didn`t have any reason to expect. That was the whistleblower`s allegation that not only did the president solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election, but in addition to that, what the whistleblower`s complaint says is that multiple White House officials and White House lawyers knew about what the president did and took unusual and overt steps to cover it up. Quoting from the whistleblower`s complaint: The White House officials who told me this information were deeply disturbed about what had transpired in the phone call between President Trump and the Ukrainian president. They told me there was already a discussion ongoing with White House lawyers about how to treat the call because of the likelihood in the officials retelling that they had witnessed the president abuse his office for personal gain. In the days following the phone call, I learned from multiple U.S. officials that senior White House officials had intervened to lock down all records of the phone call, especially the transcript of the phone call that was produced by the White House Situation Room. This set of actions underscored to me that White House officials understood the gravity of what had transpired on the call. White House officials told me they were directed by White House lawyers to remove the electronic transcript from the computer testimony in which such transcripts are stored. Instead, the transcript was loaded into a separate electronic system that`s otherwise used to store and handle classified information of an especially sensitive nature. One White House official described this act as an abuse of this electronic system because the call did not contain anything remotely sensitive from a national security perspective. And then in what was initially described as a classified appendix to the whistleblower`s complaint, the whistleblower elaborates in a few more sentences which would be like the car movie chase scene, shootout, exciting music, jump cut part of this spy movie, again, this from the originally classified appendix to the whistleblower`s complaint, quote, according to multiple White House officials I spoke with, the transcript of the president`s call with President Zelensky was placed into a computer system managed directly by the National Security Council`s directorate for intelligence programs. This is a standalone computer system reserved for code word level intelligence information such as covert action. According to information I received from White House officials, some officials voiced concerns internally that this would be an abuse of the system and was not consistent with the responsibilities of directorate for intelligence programs. According to White House officials I spoke with, this was not the first time under this administration that a presidential transcript was placed into this code word level system solely for the purpose of protecting politically sensitive rather than national security sensitive information. And so, question. If the whistleblower is right and White House lawyers directed that the evidence of this behavior by the president should be hidden in a code word protected server that is supposed to be for national security specific information and it`s not the first time they have done such a thing -- well, who would have had the authority to do that? Who would have had the authority to upload this kind of information into that code word protected secure server? Who has the authority to check that server now to see what else they might have secreted there? And honestly, how dangerous is it that they have done this? "The Wall Street Journal" tonight has further detail on how this White House cover-up might have worked. Quote: A highly secure computer system where aids to President Trump reportedly stashed the details of his call with Ukraine`s leader is so secretive that even top White House national security aides don`t have regular access to it. It is the most tightly controlled of at least four different computer systems used by the National Security Council and contains the most precious of American secrets. U.S. covert actions in other countries and counter intelligence probes aimed at finding spies within. Quote, working at the White House National Security Council means juggling multiple computers every day. One is used for unclassified communications, a second is run by the Pentagon, it`s known I think it`s SIPRNet. That`s for information up to the level of secret. A third system is for even more sensitive data designated TS/SCI for top secret/sensitive compartmented information. That`s the third level. Finally, there is the fourth and most sensitive system, the one that was reportedly used to hide the evidence of President Trump trying to get a foreign country`s help for the 2020 election. And this most sensitive system is managed by the National Security Council`s directorate of intelligence programs. It is, officials say, in fact, as the whistleblower said a standalone system. It is disconnected from other networks. The data it contains can be retrieved only by those who have code word access to individual intelligence programs. Well, who had the necessary access and clearances to hide the president`s call transcripts on that national security server? And what can be done now to follow that incredible, you know, not just revelation, but that incredible lead on what else they might have done now that we know where they have been stashing everything? Joining us now is Congressman Adam Schiff. He`s the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and he has had a very long day. Sir, thank you very much for joining us tonight. I appreciate your making time.

SCHIFF: My pleasure.

MADDOW: I have a whole bunch of questions for you, sir. But let me just ask, first of all, if I said anything in there not in keeping of your understanding of where we are or what the revelations in this scandal have been thus far? Did I screw anything up there?

SCHIFF: No. I think you summarized the allegations very accurately and the seriousness of them and also the irony, the dissonance of hearing so many of the Republicans today talk about how this whistleblower wasn`t even listening to the call himself or herself so they`re not credible. Well, actually, the allegations are more credible because their sources are so good. It would be one thing if the record of the call came out and it completely contradicted the whistleblower and you could argue, see, the whistleblower was wrong about the call and therefore, the whistleblower is wrong about everything else. But the whistleblower was so remarkably accurate, it just further enhances the credibility of that person, which means, I think, that it is far more likely that other information in that complaint is also accurate.

MADDOW: Let me ask you about one specific thing from the whistleblower complaint which has earned a follow-up from Senator Dianne Feinstein today. In the whistleblower`s complaint, the whistleblower, he or she says, in the days following the phone call, I learned from officials that senior White House officials had intervened to lock down all records of the phone call, especially the official word for word transcript of that call that was produced as is customary by the White House Situation Room. Is it your understanding that what the whistleblower is describing there, the official word for word transcript of the call, is basically the document that we have seen, those sort of close notes from the White House on what happened over that call, or is the whistleblower talking about something that`s even more specific as a transcript?

SCHIFF: Well, the short answer is I don`t know for sure. But the whistleblower may very well be describing the call record that we have now seen. It certainly is an accurate description of that call record. But also, it`s not always the case that there is a recording of a call or a word for word -- I mean, not in the sort of term of art sense but actually a verbatim transcript. It`s more often I think a summary, as this is. So I don`t know that that indicates that there is in fact a separate recording or transcript of that recording. But, of course, that`s one of the things we want to find out.

MADDOW: The complaint also says that all records of that call, including what we think is this document that`s now been released as notes to that call were locked down in the words of the whistleblower, that they were essentially migrated on to a special server system that is usually reserved for the most highly classified information inside the National Security Council. What`s your reaction to that and does your committee have the authority, have the jurisdiction to investigate that further?

SCHIFF: We certainly have the authority, and we have the jurisdiction to investigate that. And here is another irony today. That is the Department of Justice opinions says that the director of national intelligence doesn`t have jurisdiction here because this doesn`t involve an intelligence issue. This involves foreign interference in our elections. Well, first of all, that should come as a revelation to the director of national intelligence that he doesn`t have jurisdiction over foreign interference. That is a central part of his mission. In fact, that`s what the inspector general meant when he said that this is what the American people would understand as core to the function of the director. But more than that, where do they hide this stuff? They hide it with a covert information files in this super secret computer system that`s marked for classified intelligence information. So, but apart from that -- the idea that this system is being accused to conceal interactions of the president with other leaders that may reveal impropriety or illegality or betrayal of oath of office is one of, I think, the two serious allegations, core allegations in the whistleblower complaint. There is, of course, the most serious allegation that the president was using his office, abusing his authority to leverage Ukraine while holding up military aid for that country to manufacture dirt on his opponent. There is that whole constellation of issues in which you have got Rudy Giuliani revolving that constellation and laying the groundwork for that call and doing who knows what else. You`ve got Bill Barr whose role is still undetermined. The same Bill Barr on a mission to try to give credence to this conspiracy theory that, no, it was Ukraine that was interfering in our election, not Russia. By the way, that theory that the attorney general has been promoting with his investigator resources and the president was interested in getting Ukraine to promote with its investigative resources, that narrative comes from Russia. And that makes it all the more insidious.

MADDOW: Meaning Russia has been promoting that as a counter narrative to excuse their own behavior in 2016 and blame somebody else. That`s where that started.

SCHIFF: Absolutely. Absolutely.

MADDOW: Congressman Schiff, I just want to ask you about this sort of surprise revelation today about, as you say, hiding the material that proved the president`s behavior, the evidence of the president`s behavior in with the covert action files. I know that the Gang of Eight, of which you are a member, is the intelligence committee chairman. I know your committee, the intelligence committee, has access to what the intelligence committee does, even the most secret stuff. When the whistleblower says that he or she has information that this isn`t the first time that that secret server has been used to basically stash information that would otherwise be politically incriminating of the president but otherwise didn`t belong there, can you go look at that server and if they have now taken that stuff off the server after stashing that there before, would there be traces left? Would there be evidence that stuff was put there and then removed?

SCHIFF: Well, I think it is certainly very relevant to our investigation. There is no limitation in terms of what we can see when it comes to intelligence. There is no classification so high that it cannot be shared with Congress. But the idea here that this system is being abused to conceal wrongdoing is so pernicious, and the allegation that the White House counsel if part of this, White House counsel doesn`t exist to be the president`s criminal defense lawyer. That is Rudy Giuliani`s some time job. I guess the other part of his job is to get the president out of criminal trouble. But the White House council is supposed to represent the office of the presidency. It doesn`t represent the office of the presidency when it is helping the president conceal wrongdoing. But here we have such a blurring of the lines between what Rudy Giuliani does as personal lawyer, what the White House counsel does in its capacity, what Bill Barr does as the top law enforcement officer. They`re basically all part of the same legal team. There seems to be little division of responsibility. And I think that`s a perversion of how the system was intended to work. We are certainly going to try to find out what`s in that safe. And one of the first things that we did, Rachel, was send everyone concerned a preservation order to preserve the evidence. And part of that evidence is where that evidence is located. So, if there is an effort to take that information out of the safe and put it somewhere else and hide the digital dust that would show that it was there, that is a very clear act of obstruction of Congress with its own set of serious consequences.

MADDOW: Congressman Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence committee, busy man these days. Thank you for taking time to be here tonight, sir. I really appreciate.

SCHIFF: Thank you.

MADDOW: Important news there actually from Chairman Schiff that the intelligence committee has sent preservation orders, telling all the relevant entities involved here, including presumably the White House Counsel`s Office and others that they can`t throw anything out, they need to retain all records. Obviously, the mantra from the White House, from the Watergate era is that it is the cover-up not so much the crime. The destruction of evidence ends up being one of the ways that you figure out what happened, right? Destruction of evidence not only shows consciousness of guilt but that shows you who is involved, shows you who is involved in the cover-up. At this point, there is a lot of leads points at the White House and specifically at the White House council`s office in terms of how this bad behavior has been trying -- has been covered up so far. If they are going to try to stop them from further covering it up, it seems like we will have to act fast. All right. We`ll be back. Stay with us.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source