MSNBC "Hardball with Chris Matthews" Interview - Transcript

Interview

MSNBC "HARDBALL WITH CHRIS MATTHEWS" INTERVIEW WITH REP. ADAM SMITH (D-WA); REP. DARRELL ISSA (R-CA)

INTERVIEWER: CHRIS MATTHEWS

Copyright ©2009 by Federal News Service, Inc., Ste. 500, 1000 Vermont Ave, Washington, DC 20005 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service at www.fednews.com, please email Carina Nyberg at cnyberg@fednews.com or call 1-202-216-2706.

MR. MATTHEWS: Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said today that Democrats should replace House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. And Republican Congressman Darrell Issa of California called on the FBI to investigate whether the CIA did, in fact, or did not lie to her.

Congressman Issa is right here today. This is serious business. He's joined by Democratic Congressman Adam Smith of Washington State, who's a member of the Intelligence Committee and the Armed Services Committee.

Gentlemen, I want to get the particulars. It seems to me, Mr. Issa, if you're going to have an FBI investigation of a lying here -- if there was a lie -- it's an easy two-step. Go to Nancy Pelosi and ask her, was she or was she not -- and do it under oath -- was she told under oath that waterboarding was not used, then go to the briefer and say to him, "Did you know it was used but told her otherwise?"

This isn't a long investigation. You put the speaker under oath. You put the briefer under oath. Would you be for that?

REP. ISSA: Well, I'm certainly for whatever Speaker Pelosi --

MR. MATTHEWS: No -- for that. No -- for that, sir.

REP. ISSA: If Speaker Pelosi asks for that, of course I'd be for it.

MR. MATTHEWS: No, no, no. You're asking for it. You're asking for an FBI investigation. I'm asking you to say what you mean. Do you mean she should be put under oath about her briefing by the CIA back in September of 2002?

REP. ISSA: Chris, you're entitled to your questions. Please give me an opportunity to give you a fair --

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, what does an FBI investigation --

REP. ISSA: -- a fair answer.

MR. MATTHEWS: What's an FBI investigation mean, then, if it's not the obvious, asking what happened in the meeting?

REP. ISSA: Chris, the speaker of the House has made an allegation, along with other Democratic congressmen, that they were lied to.

MR. MATTHEWS: Right.

REP. ISSA: Paul Kanjorski said he was lied to a week later. Others are coming forward saying, "The CIA lied to us." That is a serious allegation. The FBI director was before our committee, before my other committee, Judiciary. And, rightfully so, we said, "Don't we have standing to make sure that we have an honest report to Congress? And isn't it your job to look into it? And would you please do it?" And a number of members asked him to do it.

We're not asking for the speaker to go under oath. We're asking for him to look into it in the ordinary course of what his obligation is, what the FBI, the U.S. attorney's obligation is. We're not making -- at least I'm not making any accusations about the speaker. I'm taking her at her word that she was lied to. And if she was lied to, then, in fact, we have to get to the bottom of whether the intelligence community lies to any of us.

And like Adam, I was on the Select Intelligence Committee. I've had a lot of those briefings. We rely on truthfulness and candor behind those closed doors. That's all we're asking is to make sure that we're getting truthfulness and candor.

MR. MATTHEWS: Congressman Smith, if there's two people in the room, a briefer and a person being briefed, the only way to find out if there was lying going on is to have a witness testify that they were lied to. Congressman Issa says he doesn't want the speaker to be forced to say she was lied to under oath. I don't know how else to get -- to have a probe, which is what the congressman says he wants -- if he's seriously pushing for a probe here now, it seems to me he has to say, "I want both parties under oath" or it's not a serious probe. What do you think?

REP. SMITH: I clearly do not think that the FBI needs to be involved in investigating this. And one of the things you have to keep in mind, there was no actual record kept of this conversation. Nobody was taking contemporaneous notes or recording what was said in this meeting. The CIA does take notes on the meetings, sometimes weeks after the meeting actually took place.

So ever determining exactly what was said in that room or in any of the briefings is going to be absolutely impossible. I mean, we can go back and sort of see what everyone's opinion was about what happened six years ago, but I think that would be a colossal waste of the FBI's time.

And one other point here. There is a long history of members of Congress of both parties disputing what the CIA tells us on the Intelligence Committee. Sometimes we think they intentionally left stuff out. Sometimes we think they misled us. You know, there's a long history of this dispute. We don't want the FBI investigating this every time there's a disagreement.

Representative Hoekstra, the Republican ranking member on Intelligence, has many, many disagreements with what the CIA did or did not tell us over the course of the last few years. What we need is we need the Intelligence Committees in the House and the Senate to have communications with the CIA about exactly what was said and to try to build on that relationship to make sure that this misunderstanding doesn't keep happening. We don't need the FBI to be investigating what was said at one meeting six and a half years ago when it wasn't even recorded.

REP. ISSA: Chris, that's an amazing --

MR. MATTHEWS: Congressman Issa, your view on that? You believe there should be an FBI probe, which means you think there might be criminality involved, because it is -- as you pointed out, it is illegal to lie to Congress. Do you believe -- how would you go about finding out whether somebody lied if you don't ask the witness in the room, Nancy Pelosi? That's what I don't understand, how you can have a probe without a probe.

REP. ISSA: Chris, it's amazing that Adam's able to know all the facts about why there's no culpability and no possibility of getting to the bottom of it --

REP. SMITH: I'm not saying I know all the facts. I'm just saying they're not recorded anywhere.

REP. ISSA: You made a lot of statements that I don't actually know, but what I do know is that we had numerous briefings during that period of time. The gang of four had briefings.

There were plenty of opportunities to see whether the CIA told the truth or didn't at other times. And many of those -- certain of those are recorded.

But the fact is, the speaker has said that, in fact, the CIA lied. The CIA has said, "No, we didn't." Now, I'd like to make sure that the speaker has an opportunity to get her reputation back, if you will. And at the same time, unlike Adam, I'm very concerned that every briefing to every member of Congress, whether it's at the secret level or the most compartmented level, be honest and have candor. And Pete Hoekstra, when he has felt he didn't get candor, he has come very quickly forward, worked with the IGs, worked with the other groups to ensure that he gets candor going forward.

REP. SMITH: Yes, and that's perfectly appropriate.

REP. ISSA: Right. And as the Republican head on the Oversight Committee, I felt an obligation, also when I was a Judiciary Committee member, to ensure that we dig into this to make sure that if the CIA was not candid, that we hold them accountable. That's all I'm doing. And to say we can't do it doesn't --

REP. SMITH: Well, that's not all you're doing, actually.

MR. MATTHEWS: Okay, let me --

REP. ISSA: No, that is all I'm doing. That is all I'm doing.

MR. MATTHEWS: Gentlemen, I have to recap. Gentlemen, I want to ask you this; first, Congressman Issa, then Congressman Smith. It seems to me we have two things on the record now, and it's been clear. Last Thursday the speaker said that they told her they had not used waterboarding. The briefer said specifically, "We have not used waterboarding on any of the terrorist suspects." And then the CIA, spoken for by Leon Panetta, said, "Yes, we did tell her that."

So you have on the record, Congressman Issa, the claims -- the testimony, if you will -- of the speaker and the CIA. So we have that. What would an FBI probe accomplish beyond getting them both to say what they said on the record, which is adversarial? What would you accomplish with a criminal probe?

REP. ISSA: Well, we in the Congress hold ourselves accountable, including the speaker of the House. And I'm not disputing that. That's an internal requirement. But we also have an obligation to hold the other branch accountable. In this case, the allegation that the CIA lied is a serious one. And Leon Panetta, as a former congressman, very well knows we have an obligation to probe into that and find out whether it's true or not.

We're not looking to the speaker of the House. We are looking, as congressmen, externally to whether the CIA lied or not. They say they didn't. We need to know. We need to know every single time. And I disagree with Congressman Smith. Every single time there's an allegation that we were lied to or misled, we need to get to the bottom of it.

REP. SMITH: There's no disagreement on that.

REP. ISSA: And this is no exception. So that's what I'm calling for. That's why I talked to the director. And that's the direction that I want to go is out, external. It's not a question of whether the speaker's memory is correct or not. We'll deal with that -- she can deal with that. They said they told her. She said she believes they didn't. We need to know if they lied to the speaker of the House.

MR. MATTHEWS: Congressman Smith, they're both in CYA mode. Both parties, the speaker and the CIA, are both saying they did the right thing. The speaker said she wasn't told. In fact, she was told the opposite of what the CIA is claiming now. I just wonder how we're going to get any further without putting both parties under oath and seeing if they're willing to take the risk of perjury if they're not telling the truth. You say it's not worth doing.

REP. SMITH: We will get further in exactly the way that Representative Issa said that Representative Hoekstra has gotten further when he's had these type of disputes -- working through the inspector general, working through the Intelligence Committees, and working through the CIA.

Bringing the FBI into this makes no sense whatsoever. There is very, very little evidence at this point of a crime. There is a dispute about facts in one conversation that happened six and a half years ago, and this particular conversation is the one that was not contemporaneously recorded. What exactly was said there -- the FBI doesn't belong here. And I suspect that there is a little bit of Republican grandstanding in trying to drag the FBI into this when the appropriate thing to do is exactly what Representative Issa described --

MR. MATTHEWS: Okay. Well, last word.

REP. SMITH: -- have the inspector general do his job --

MR. MATTHEWS: U.S. Congressman Darrell Issa, thank you sir, as always -- you're always welcome here -- and Congressman Adam Smith of Washington State. Gentlemen, both of you, thank you for coming in for this debate.

REP. SMITH: Thank you.

REP. ISSA: Thanks, Chris.

Source