Adam Schiff full State of the Union Interview

JAKE TAPPER: Documents also
fired national security adviser retired Lieutenant General
Michael Flynn, who this week asked Congress for immunity
in exchange for any testimony about Russian meddling
in the US election.
Flynn failed to report thousands of dollars
in speaking fees he had received from the Russian
government-owned propaganda channel RT for this appearance
alongside Russian president Vladimir Putin,
as well as for paid speeches by a Russian airline and a
Russian cyber security company.
Flynn's lawyer claims he was fired
before he could complete his initial financial disclosure
forms.
I'm joined now by one of the congressmen
leading the probe into Russia's activities
in the US election, Representative Adam Schiff, who
serves as the ranking Democrat on the House
Intelligence Committee.
Congressman Schiff, thanks so much for joining us.
ADAM SCHIFF: It's good to be with you, Jake.
JAKE TAPPER: So let me ask you about General Flynn.
He says-- his lawyer says, at least, that he's
willing to testify before your committee
if he's given immunity.
President Trump seemed to voice support
for this, tweeting, quote "Mike Flynn should ask for immunity
in that this is a witch hunt (excuse for big election loss),
by media & Dems, of historic proportion!"
Flynn's lawyer says that General Flynn has
a story to tell congressmen.
What would it take for the committee to give him immunity?
ADAM SCHIFF: Well, I think we start out
with a very healthy skepticism.
We know from the filings that were dumped by the White
House on Friday that General Flynn failed to report
the money that he received from that RT
propaganda arm of the Kremlin, as well
as two other Russian entities.
We also have requested the background security documents
that General Flynn filled out, to find out whether he
similarly failed to disclose work that he was doing
as a financial agent of a foreign power,
or receiving financial support from a foreign power.
And of course, there's the issue of whether General
Flynn made false statements that would
also expose him to liability.
So there's a lot we need to learn
before entertaining anything like this.
There's a lot we need to learn from other witnesses.
But I start out, I think, with a very healthy skepticism.
JAKE TAPPER: A skepticism that he has anything worth sharing?
What is this skepticism about?
ADAM SCHIFF: Well the skepticism is, we'll need to consult
with the Justice Department.
They obviously have a lot of equities here.
We don't want to do anything that will interfere in any case
that the Justice Department may decide to bring.
We also have to determine whether he really can add value
to our investigation, whether we need
him to learn information we can't learn from other sources.
So it's very early, I think, even to be considering this.
There's a lot more work that we need to do,
and I think we're properly bringing a degree of skepticism
along with us.
JAKE TAPPER: What did you think about President Trump tweeting
about the immunity deal?
Some of the president's critics suggested that maybe he
was signaling to the Justice Department or the FBI
that they should offer General Flynn such a deal.
ADAM SCHIFF: You know, the president is pretty
transparent in his tweets.
I think he wanted to get across a message
that he's not afraid of what General Flynn has to say,
and basically daring the Congress to give him immunity.
And then if we make a judgment that, no, we shouldn't
be giving him immunity, the president can say we don't
want his story to come out.
So I think it was a strategic move by the president
and a pretty transparent one.
JAKE TAPPER: On Friday, you traveled to the White House
to view these documents that Chairman
Nunes, your Republican counterpart, has discussed.
And Nunes says that they suggest the raising of issues,
issues that he has, about incidental surveillance
of Trump advisers, maybe even the president himself.
The president has said he feels somewhat vindicated by what
Nunes has said about these documents,
although Nunes has said they do not
show what the president claimed, a wiretap
of Trump at Trump Tower.
But now that you've seen these documents,
can you understand why Chairman Nunes
might have some issues with the surveillance that was going on?
ADAM SCHIFF: Well, I can't go into the contents
of the documents, Jake.
I can say I don't agree with the chairman's characterization,
which is exactly why it's so important you
don't share documents with just one person or even two people.
They need to be shared with both full committees.
But the most important thing people
need to know about these documents is not classified.
And it's a couple things.
First, the Deputy Assistant to the White House
informed me when I went to see them
that these are exactly the same materials that
were shown to the chairman.
Now, this is a very interesting point.
How does the White House know that these
are the same materials that were shown to the chairman
if the White House wasn't aware what
the chairman was being shown?
And the second point was also made to me,
and this is, I think, was also underscored by Sean Spicer.
And that is, it was told to me by the Deputy Assistant
that these materials were produced in the ordinary course
of business.
Well, the question for the White House and for Mr. Spicer
is, the ordinary course of whose business?
Because if these were produced either for or by the White
House, then why all the subterfuge?
There's nothing ordinary about the process
that was used here at all.
And Jake, I think the answer may come
from the president himself.
And you can say a lot of things about
the president, but one thing you cannot say is, he's not subtle.
And I think his tweets tell the story.
And the story is look over there at leaks,
and look over there at anything the Obama administration
we can claim did wrong on incidental collection
or anything else.
But whatever you do, under no circumstances,
look here, at me or at Russia.
I think that's really what's going on.
JAKE TAPPER: Do you think that Chairman Nunes was
part of an attempt to provide some sort of cover
for the president's claim about Obama
wiretapping him at Trump Tower, which obviously, this does not
prove, but to cover for that, or an attempt to distract,
as you're suggesting?
ADAM SCHIFF: It certainly is an attempt
to distract and to hide the origin of the materials,
to hide the White House hand.
The question is, of course, why.
And I think the answer the question is this effort
to point the Congress in other directions,
basically say, don't look at me.
Don't look at Russia.
There's nothing to see here.
You know, I would tell people, whenever
they see the president use the word fake,
it ought to set off alarm bells.
And I think that's really what's gone on here.
JAKE TAPPER: Now you signed a letter with Chairman Nunes
about three weeks ago, asking the intelligence
community about unmasking.
That's when someone incidentally picked up on surveillance
is named by official name and not citizen
A in an intelligence report.
I guess the question the Nunes is asking or suggesting
that we should be asking in the media, who unmasked these Trump
advisers, and is it possible that any of this unmasking
was being done for political reasons
instead of for legitimate ones?
ADAM SCHIFF: Well, first of all I
can't talk about, as I mentioned,
the contents of any documents.
So at this point, I can't say whether anything was
masked or unmasked improperly.
I can say this.
In the ordinary course of what we
do as an oversight committee, we look at exactly these issues.
If the White House had any concern
about whether minimisation was used properly or unmasking
was used properly or there was improper incidental collection
or how it was handled, that is material
that should be given to us in the ordinary course of affairs.
It doesn't need to be done, you know,
by night, through stealth at the White House.
The only reason to do that, again,
is if you want to hide where these materials are really
coming from and who is behind it.
And I think, you know, part of the reason why that was done is
this effort to deflect attention from the Russia investigation,
to raise other issues to effectively create
a cloud through which the public cannot
see what's at stake here.
And what's at stake here is a foreign intervention
in our election, a very serious issue about whether US persons
were involved, an investigation that's
being conducted by the FBI into possible coordination
with the Trump campaign.
That is really, I think, among the most serious business
the country has to do right now.
And the White House seems to be doing
everything it can to point in other directions
and say, do not look here.
There is nothing to see here.
JAKE TAPPER: And the big issue, of course,
is whether or not there was collusion among members
of the Trump campaign or surrounding the Trump
campaign, Trump advisers.
Can you say definitively that there was collusion, there were
people affiliated with the Trump campaign
who were working with Russians to time
the release of damaging information
about Hillary Clinton that had been that had been hacked,
either from John Podesta or the DNC?
ADAM SCHIFF: I don't think we can say anything
definitively at this point.
We are still at the very early stage of the investigation.
The only thing I can say is that it
would be irresponsible for us not
to get to the bottom of this.
We really need to do-- we really need to find out exactly
what the Russians did, because one of the most important
conclusions that the intelligence community reached
is that they are going to do this
again to the United States.
They're doing it already in Europe.
So we can say, you know, conclusively,
this is something that needs to be thoroughly investigated.
But it's way premature to be reaching conclusions.
JAKE TAPPER: Congressman Adam Schiff, Democrat of California,
we thank you for your time today.
Thank you, sir.
ADAM SCHIFF: Thank you very much, Jake.

Adam Schiff full State of the Union Interview

Latest Posts