Performing search for your keyword(s) in 23 footage partner archives, please wait...
Summary
--SUPERS--
From: CNN's "State of the Union"
Sunday
Washington
Jake Tapper
Host, CNN's "State of the Union"
Rep. Adam Schiff
(D) Chairman, Intelligence Committee
--alt with--
(D) California
--INTERVIEW-AS FOLLOWS--
SCHIFF: Yes, we'd love to have these witnesses come in, but we're not willing to simply allow them to wait us out to stall this proceeding, when the facts are already overwhelming. We're going to continue our investigation. We are going to continue to pursue the documents.
TAPPER: Even after you have handed in the report, you're going to continue?
SCHIFF: Yes. Oh, yes. The investigation isn't going to end. But this gets back to, I think, something the inspector general said, which is, this is an urgent concern. This President has now twice sought foreign interference in our election. And that election is coming up.
TAPPER: The first time being with Russia.
SCHIFF: The first time being with Russia, when he invited the Russians to hack Hillary's e-mails, and, later that day, they attempted to do exactly that. There is a sense of urgency, when you have a President who's threatening the integrity of our elections, that we need to act now, if we're going to act, and we can't allow this obstruction to succeed. The other point I would make is, the case in terms of the Ukraine misconduct is ironclad, but so is the case of the President's obstruction of the Congress. And there was no discussion of that, really, by "The New York Times" or others. And we do need to consider that, if we allow this obstruction to succeed, if we allow them to draw us out endlessly in the courts, then it does make the impeachment clause a nonentity. It means Congress will forever be incapable of doing any oversight. Why should any future President answer a congressional subpoena? The Republicans who take this position today, I guarantee you...
TAPPER: Yes.
SCHIFF: ... will rue the day they did.
TAPPER: But what do you say to people who say, well, look, you're accusing the President of using his office for political reasons, right, and abusing it, and you are making a decision based on politics itself in the timing of this, that it's going to take too long? I have never heard you say it, but other Democrats have said they don't want to get in the way of the six Democrats in the Senate running for president. They don't want to have 2020 be the year the Democrats are known for only impeaching President Trump, as opposed to legislation, political arguments, essentially.
SCHIFF: I don't subscribe to those political arguments. I don't think people should be making them, and I don't think people should be thinking of them. What we ought to think about is, what does it mean to this office if we don't impeach the president based on the facts before us? What does it mean if we do impeach the president? What will this tell future presidents about what they can get away with? What does this tell the American people about what they should now expect in their chief executive?
TAPPER: What about the idea -- I have heard this legal theory posited -- that, if you took Bolton and everybody to court, Mulvaney, et cetera -- and the Supreme Court has never really weighed in on whether or not such a thing -- they have accommodated here and there, but they have never really made a decision about where executive privilege ends and where it begins when it comes to people in the White House testifying, being forced to testify before Congress. It would go before the Supreme Court. Who knows how they would rule, and that's -- all of a sudden, we're in 2020. But if you do it the way you're doing it, which is, it goes -- presuming that you impeach the President, the House Democrats vote to impeach the President, it goes to the Senate, Chief Justice John Roberts presides, and he could theoretically compel John Bolton and others to testify. I have heard that as a legal theory as to why you're doing it that way. Is there any merit to that?
SCHIFF: Well, I think there's certainly merit to the idea that we may get a quicker ruling from a chief justice in a Senate trial, if it ever came to that, than we would get by going months and months on end litigating the matter. There's no guarantee of that, but I think that it's entirely possible. Ultimately, though, one thing is clear. Because we have adduced so much evidence of guilt of this President, so much evidence of serious misconduct, any privilege the President would have would be vitiated by this crime-fraud exception. So, that will give way. And if it doesn't, to quote my colleague Chairman Nadler, it will mean that either Justice Roberts or the Supreme Court itself is not really a conservative justice or court, merely a partisan one. And I have to hope that that's not the case for the country's sake.
TAPPER: So John Bolton's lawyer says that Bolton knows about -- quote -- "many relevant meetings and conversations that have not yet been discussed in the testimonies thus far." Do you know what he's talking about? Has your committee been in touch with John Bolton and his lawyer?
SCHIFF: We have certainly been in touch with his lawyer. And what we have been informed by his lawyer -- because we invited him to come in, and he did not choose to come in and testify, notwithstanding the fact that his deputy Fiona Hill and his other deputy, Colonel Vindman, and Tim Morrison and others in the National Security Council have shown the courage to come in -- is, if we subpoena him, they will sue us in court.
TAPPER: Mm-hmm.
SCHIFF: Now, he will have to explain one day, if that -- if he maintains that position, why he wanted to wait to put it in a book, instead of tell the American people what he knew when it really mattered to the country.
TAPPER: Although it sounds like you're saying that there is the possibility that he could be compelled to testify in the Senate, theoretically?
SCHIFF: Well, he could. He could.
TAPPER: Would you be a House impeachment in the Senate?
SCHIFF: But the thing is -- the thing is, Jake, that doesn't relieve him of the obligation right now to show the courage that Dr. Hill did.
TAPPER: Mm-hmm.
SCHIFF: She was told not to come in. She was told that, if she came in and testified, it could contravene this privilege or that privilege. She made the decision this is the right thing to do. John Bolton should make the same decision.
TAPPER: So, as you know, if the President -- if there is a trial in the Senate, the President will be allowed to call his witnesses as well. The Republicans will be allowed to call their witnesses as well that probably include Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, the whistle-blower.And President Trump just yesterday said that you yourself should be compelled to testify if the House moves forward and it goes to the Senate. Would you be willing to do so in the House Judiciary Committee? Would you be willing to do so in the Senate?
SCHIFF: There's nothing for me to testify about, Jake. And I think, if the President or his allies in the Senate persist in this, it really means they're not serious about what they're doing. And...
TAPPER: Well, they would -- they would cite -- sorry for interrupting, but they would cite David Kendall, who was President Clinton's attorney during that impeachment. He got to cross-examine Ken Starr. Now, I know understand you're not as independent counsel, but you did lead the investigation.
SCHIFF: Well, but this -- this is not an insignificant distinction, Jake. I'm not a special counsel. I don't work for a separate branch of government. I'm not in the Justice Department. I am more in a position that Henry Hyde was during the Clinton impeachment, or Peter Rodino during the Nixon impeachment, or Sam Ervin. They were not fact witnesses. What would I offer in terms of testimony, that I heard Dr. Hill in open hearing say such and such? That's not pertinent. The only reason for them to go through with this is to mollify the President. And that's not a good reason to try to call a member of Congress as a witness.
TAPPER: But you would acknowledge that there are questions you could answer about your staff having been approached by the whistle-blower before he filed his complaint and other matters, things that you could shed light on or explain.Would you -- would you refuse to go if the Senate wanted you to come as a witness?
SCHIFF: I don't want to comment on it, except to say that, if they go down this road, it shows a fundamental lack of seriousness, a willingness to try to turn this into a circus, like the President would like. And I hope they don't go there. There are others who are fact witnesses. We didn't call in Senator Johnson. We're not calling in Devin Nunes. We didn't call in Senator Graham. There's a far stronger case for people like Senator Graham, who talked to the President, or fact witnesses than the chairman doing the investigative committee work in the House.
TAPPER: You just brought up Devin Nunes, who is your Republican counterpart on the committee. He is now denying an allegation made by the attorney for Rudy Giuliani's associate Lev Parnas. And the -- and Lev Parnas, according to his attorney, says that he -- that Nunes met with the former Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin in Vienna last year, in part to dig up dirt on Joe Biden. Now, that's a lot of layers of people who I don't know how trustworthy they are, a lawyer and Lev Parnas and Viktor Shokin. But that allegation is being made by this individual. Did you know anything about these allegations? Do you find them credible?
SCHIFF: I can't get into what I know at this point. I don't want to go into those specifics. I can say that we have subpoenaed documents from Mr. Parnas. We have had discussions with the Southern District of New York in terms of Mr. Nunes' conduct. If he was on a taxpayer-funded CODEL -- and I say if -- seeking dirt on a potential Democratic candidate for president, Joe Biden, that will be an ethics matter. That's not before our committee. Our interest in -- is in what this President ordered through his legal counsel Rudy Giuliani, what efforts he made to condition official acts on the performance of political favors. That's where our focus is.
-----END-----
--KEYWORD TAGS--
POLITICS IMPEACHMENT DEMOCRAT REPUBLICAN HOUSE UKRAINE AID BIDEN INVESTIGATION
Footage Information
Source | CNN Collection |
---|---|
Link | View details on CNN Collection site |
Title | REP ADAM SCHIFF ON SOTU (PART TWO ) |
Date | 11-24-2019 |
Description | --SUPERS-- From: CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday Washington Jake Tapper Host, CNN's "State of the Union" Rep. Adam Schiff (D) Chairman, Intelligence Committee --alt with-- (D) California --INTERVIEW-AS FOLLOWS-- SCHIFF: Yes, we'd love to have these witnesses come in, but we're not willing to simply allow them to wait us out to stall this proceeding, when the facts are already overwhelming. We're going to continue our investigation. We are going to continue to pursue the documents. TAPPER: Even after you have handed in the report, you're going to continue? SCHIFF: Yes. Oh, yes. The investigation isn't going to end. But this gets back to, I think, something the inspector general said, which is, this is an urgent concern. This President has now twice sought foreign interference in our election. And that election is coming up. TAPPER: The first time being with Russia. SCHIFF: The first time being with Russia, when he invited the Russians to hack Hillary's e-mails, and, later that day, they attempted to do exactly that. There is a sense of urgency, when you have a President who's threatening the integrity of our elections, that we need to act now, if we're going to act, and we can't allow this obstruction to succeed. The other point I would make is, the case in terms of the Ukraine misconduct is ironclad, but so is the case of the President's obstruction of the Congress. And there was no discussion of that, really, by "The New York Times" or others. And we do need to consider that, if we allow this obstruction to succeed, if we allow them to draw us out endlessly in the courts, then it does make the impeachment clause a nonentity. It means Congress will forever be incapable of doing any oversight. Why should any future President answer a congressional subpoena? The Republicans who take this position today, I guarantee you... TAPPER: Yes. SCHIFF: ... will rue the day they did. TAPPER: But what do you say to people who say, well, look, you're accusing the President of using his office for political reasons, right, and abusing it, and you are making a decision based on politics itself in the timing of this, that it's going to take too long? I have never heard you say it, but other Democrats have said they don't want to get in the way of the six Democrats in the Senate running for president. They don't want to have 2020 be the year the Democrats are known for only impeaching President Trump, as opposed to legislation, political arguments, essentially. SCHIFF: I don't subscribe to those political arguments. I don't think people should be making them, and I don't think people should be thinking of them. What we ought to think about is, what does it mean to this office if we don't impeach the president based on the facts before us? What does it mean if we do impeach the president? What will this tell future presidents about what they can get away with? What does this tell the American people about what they should now expect in their chief executive? TAPPER: What about the idea -- I have heard this legal theory posited -- that, if you took Bolton and everybody to court, Mulvaney, et cetera -- and the Supreme Court has never really weighed in on whether or not such a thing -- they have accommodated here and there, but they have never really made a decision about where executive privilege ends and where it begins when it comes to people in the White House testifying, being forced to testify before Congress. It would go before the Supreme Court. Who knows how they would rule, and that's -- all of a sudden, we're in 2020. But if you do it the way you're doing it, which is, it goes -- presuming that you impeach the President, the House Democrats vote to impeach the President, it goes to the Senate, Chief Justice John Roberts presides, and he could theoretically compel John Bolton and others to testify. I have heard that as a legal theory as to why you're doing it that way. Is there any merit to that? SCHIFF: Well, I think there's certainly merit to the idea that we may get a quicker ruling from a chief justice in a Senate trial, if it ever came to that, than we would get by going months and months on end litigating the matter. There's no guarantee of that, but I think that it's entirely possible. Ultimately, though, one thing is clear. Because we have adduced so much evidence of guilt of this President, so much evidence of serious misconduct, any privilege the President would have would be vitiated by this crime-fraud exception. So, that will give way. And if it doesn't, to quote my colleague Chairman Nadler, it will mean that either Justice Roberts or the Supreme Court itself is not really a conservative justice or court, merely a partisan one. And I have to hope that that's not the case for the country's sake. TAPPER: So John Bolton's lawyer says that Bolton knows about -- quote -- "many relevant meetings and conversations that have not yet been discussed in the testimonies thus far." Do you know what he's talking about? Has your committee been in touch with John Bolton and his lawyer? SCHIFF: We have certainly been in touch with his lawyer. And what we have been informed by his lawyer -- because we invited him to come in, and he did not choose to come in and testify, notwithstanding the fact that his deputy Fiona Hill and his other deputy, Colonel Vindman, and Tim Morrison and others in the National Security Council have shown the courage to come in -- is, if we subpoena him, they will sue us in court. TAPPER: Mm-hmm. SCHIFF: Now, he will have to explain one day, if that -- if he maintains that position, why he wanted to wait to put it in a book, instead of tell the American people what he knew when it really mattered to the country. TAPPER: Although it sounds like you're saying that there is the possibility that he could be compelled to testify in the Senate, theoretically? SCHIFF: Well, he could. He could. TAPPER: Would you be a House impeachment in the Senate? SCHIFF: But the thing is -- the thing is, Jake, that doesn't relieve him of the obligation right now to show the courage that Dr. Hill did. TAPPER: Mm-hmm. SCHIFF: She was told not to come in. She was told that, if she came in and testified, it could contravene this privilege or that privilege. She made the decision this is the right thing to do. John Bolton should make the same decision. TAPPER: So, as you know, if the President -- if there is a trial in the Senate, the President will be allowed to call his witnesses as well. The Republicans will be allowed to call their witnesses as well that probably include Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, the whistle-blower.And President Trump just yesterday said that you yourself should be compelled to testify if the House moves forward and it goes to the Senate. Would you be willing to do so in the House Judiciary Committee? Would you be willing to do so in the Senate? SCHIFF: There's nothing for me to testify about, Jake. And I think, if the President or his allies in the Senate persist in this, it really means they're not serious about what they're doing. And... TAPPER: Well, they would -- they would cite -- sorry for interrupting, but they would cite David Kendall, who was President Clinton's attorney during that impeachment. He got to cross-examine Ken Starr. Now, I know understand you're not as independent counsel, but you did lead the investigation. SCHIFF: Well, but this -- this is not an insignificant distinction, Jake. I'm not a special counsel. I don't work for a separate branch of government. I'm not in the Justice Department. I am more in a position that Henry Hyde was during the Clinton impeachment, or Peter Rodino during the Nixon impeachment, or Sam Ervin. They were not fact witnesses. What would I offer in terms of testimony, that I heard Dr. Hill in open hearing say such and such? That's not pertinent. The only reason for them to go through with this is to mollify the President. And that's not a good reason to try to call a member of Congress as a witness. TAPPER: But you would acknowledge that there are questions you could answer about your staff having been approached by the whistle-blower before he filed his complaint and other matters, things that you could shed light on or explain.Would you -- would you refuse to go if the Senate wanted you to come as a witness? SCHIFF: I don't want to comment on it, except to say that, if they go down this road, it shows a fundamental lack of seriousness, a willingness to try to turn this into a circus, like the President would like. And I hope they don't go there. There are others who are fact witnesses. We didn't call in Senator Johnson. We're not calling in Devin Nunes. We didn't call in Senator Graham. There's a far stronger case for people like Senator Graham, who talked to the President, or fact witnesses than the chairman doing the investigative committee work in the House. TAPPER: You just brought up Devin Nunes, who is your Republican counterpart on the committee. He is now denying an allegation made by the attorney for Rudy Giuliani's associate Lev Parnas. And the -- and Lev Parnas, according to his attorney, says that he -- that Nunes met with the former Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin in Vienna last year, in part to dig up dirt on Joe Biden. Now, that's a lot of layers of people who I don't know how trustworthy they are, a lawyer and Lev Parnas and Viktor Shokin. But that allegation is being made by this individual. Did you know anything about these allegations? Do you find them credible? SCHIFF: I can't get into what I know at this point. I don't want to go into those specifics. I can say that we have subpoenaed documents from Mr. Parnas. We have had discussions with the Southern District of New York in terms of Mr. Nunes' conduct. If he was on a taxpayer-funded CODEL -- and I say if -- seeking dirt on a potential Democratic candidate for president, Joe Biden, that will be an ethics matter. That's not before our committee. Our interest in -- is in what this President ordered through his legal counsel Rudy Giuliani, what efforts he made to condition official acts on the performance of political favors. That's where our focus is. -----END----- --KEYWORD TAGS-- POLITICS IMPEACHMENT DEMOCRAT REPUBLICAN HOUSE UKRAINE AID BIDEN INVESTIGATION |
Class | Editorial |
Rights | Rights Managed |
Length | 00:08:56 |
Frame Rate | 29.97 fps |
Format | High Definition |
Synopsis | House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff's full 'State of the Union' interview with Jake Tapper on impeachment - Part 2. |
CNN ID | 44025000 |
Name | 370731_H5BHZJG9WE |