CNN "State of the Union" - Transcript: Interview With Rep. Adam Schiff

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

TAPPER: Welcome back to STATE OF THE UNION. I'm Jake Tapper.

Both chambers of Congress will be back in town this week, but there has been no sign of progress over the president's stalled Senate impeachment trial. And now lawmakers are dealing with a pressing new concern, the fallout over a U.S. strike on Iran's top general.

Joining me now is the chairman of House Intelligence Committee, Congressman Adam Schiff. Congressman, we have a lot to get to but I want to start with Iran. You said after the briefing on Friday you're a member of the gang of eight so you would be briefed on such a thing, that you have yet to get an adequate answer about why the strike was necessary right now. You heard Senator Warren suggest that this might politically timed, almost like a "wag the dog" suggestion to change the subject from impeachment. A pretty striking suggestion from the senator, is she right?

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA), INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: Look, I don't know what the president's motivation here is but I think it was a reckless decision that increased the risk to Americans all around the world, not decreased it.

When Secretary Pompeo says that this decision to take out Qasem Soleimani to save American lives, save European lives, he is expressing a personal opinion, not an intelligence conclusion. Much like his opinion that leaving reneging on the Iran deal improved our security, the evidence has been to the contrary.

[09:50:03]

And I think the evidence will be the contrary here sadly. I think it will increase the risk to Americans around the world. I haven't seen intelligence that taking out Soleimani was going to either stop the plotting (ph) that's going on or decrease (INAUDIBLE) United States. And in fact we are already seeing serious strategic repercussions.

The Iraqi prime minister now supporting -- throwing American troops out of Iraq. The Iraqi parliament introducing new resolution to remove us in that country. That's going to impede our fight against ISIS. That would be a real coup for Iran to force the United States out of Iraq.

We're going to have to take our eye off the ball when it comes to fighting ISIS in Syria because we are not going to be able to, I think, protect a small number of forces there. So, either we're going to have to send more forces or have to withdraw the forces that we have. So strategically, I think, we have already seen setbacks and I don't know that we're going to see any improvement. Our security, I think quite the contrary we may see an increase risk of war with Iran.

TAPPER: But you acknowledged as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs have said and others in the Trump administration have said that Soleimani was heading a plot to attack American interests in the region. That is accurate?

SCHIFF: It's accurate but it's also true that Soleimani has been plotting against the United States for decades. The question is, did the plotting here rise to the level that requires his elimination from the battlefield and would that elimination stop the plotting or would it accelerated it or would it make the potential attacks to the United States great or not worse? And there I don't think the intelligence supports the conclusion that removing Soleimani increases our security.

There's a big difference when our generals talk about potential plots in days, weeks or months between days and months. And particularly when you have someone like Soleimani who has been at this for so long. So the question is, why now? Is this going to increase or decrease the risk of war? And I think it is going to increase the risk of war with Iran.

TAPPER: So some officials told "The New York Times" that the evidence that this attack was imminent was -- quote -- "razor thin." Do you agree?

SCHIFF: I don't know if I would use that characterization. I would say that there certainly was a lack of detail in terms of the plotting and I don't think we have sufficient guidance on either its imminence or the nature of the attacks to warrant taking out Soleimani. I don't think the intelligence supports the conclusion that killing a top Iranian official is going to either stop plotting or improve America's security.

I do think it is likely to result in strategic losses. I think it's going to result in potentially our being thrown out of Iraq, reducing our ability to fight ISIS. And additional plotting against the United States.

TAPPER: Let's turn to impeachment. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is still holding on the articles of impeachment and preventing the Senate from beginning its trial. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell made clear on Friday he said he's in no rush to hold the trial. He's not going to meet her demands for a trial. How long are Democrats -- Democratic leaders prepared to hold on to the articles? Might this go until February? Could this be indefinite?

SCHIFF: I don't think it's going to be indefinite, no. I don't think that's at all the desire and motivation here. The desire is to get a commitment from the Senate that they're going to have a fair trial. Fair to the president, yes, but fair to the American people.

TAPPER: McConnell is not going to do what you guys want him to do.

SCHIFF: Well, McConnell, I think is -- one success that this has already had is flushing out McConnell. Showing that he is working cahoots with the president, that he has made himself an active participant in the president's cover up. So, the American people needed to see that and now they do. We also --

TAPPER: So, you're never going to get what you want though? I mean, isn't that -- isn't that what you are saying?

SCHIFF: No. That's not necessarily the case either because you are also seeing the effect of this is flushing out senators where Democrats and Republicans are now having to go on the record and say, do we want to witnesses? Do we want to see the documents? Do we want the American people to hear the evidence? Do we want a real trial or do we want a cover up?

It is clear, I think, when the president and Mitch McConnell they don't want a trial anymore, they don't want witnesses, they don't want documents, they don't even want -- Jake, they don't even want a verdict. They want a dismissal. They want to have the House measures come in. Make a presentation and then move to dismiss and they could go away before the American people get to see the full extent of the president misconduct.

But, that's not what the American people want. It is not what the founders contemplated. And if you ask even a majority of Republicans around the country, they want the evidence to come out. And so I think that withholding the articles thus far flushed out where Mitch McConnell is coming from it has required Senators to go on record. And it's my hope that that pressure will result in a real trial, fair to the American people as well as fair to the president.

[09:55:01]

TAPPER: So -- but if you have succeeding in doing that, in flushing out where McConnell and flushing out where people like Murkowski and Collins are, does that mean it's now time to transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate? I mean, could that happen this week or do you think it's more likely in February?

SCHIFF: Well, that will be decisions speaker has to make and I don't know the answer to that. But I can say that at the end of the day what we all should be pushing for. And I agree with Senator Durbin. I don't think any Senator should be expressing opinions here.

What we should want is a fair trial and what we should want of senators is that they take their oath seriously and that oath requires them to be impartial. You know, I've heard some of the senators like in the Senate proceeding to an appeal, it is not an appeal. It is a trial which means that it ought to involve witnesses. In fact each of these trials that have gone forward with impeaching a president in the past have involved witness testimony, but we ought to also start out by having the documents come out and the documents that had been coming out lately are increasingly in criminating of the president. You can see why they want to cover those up -- those documents ought to be provided as well.

TAPPER: The top House attorney for Democrats told the federal court on Friday, that there may be a third article of impeachment for obstruction of justice during the Mueller investigation. Are you considering impeaching President Trump again?

SCHIFF: Well, we are focused right now on the trial we've got coming up and that's our foremost priority. But what the House council is saying is we have been trying to get testimony from people like Don McGahn. We've been trying to get the grand jury material as part of the impeachment inquiry. And for those senators who say, well, why did the House wait on the Ukraine articles until you exhausted the court remedies? The reason is because on those articles, the president was trying to speak foreign help in the election. It is not sufficient to say let's wait another year or two years to get those witnesses in if the president is trying to cheat in the election.

So we move forward with those articles that had the greatest sense of urgency. We continue to press the case with McGahn, with a grand jury material, with those that weren't as urgent. And I think that makes all the sense in the world.

TAPPER: Chairman Adam Schiff, thanks so much for being here. We really appreciate it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source