MSNBC "All in with Chris Hayes" - Transcript: "The Dam is broken: Impeachment is on the way."

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

HAYES: Here with me now, a member of Congress who reveal the existence of the whistleblower complaint earlier this month who chairs one of the committee`s that will be key in the coming investigations Congressman Adam Schiff, Democratic California, Chair the House Intelligence Committee. Let me start with the most recent news reporting that suggests that the White House is going to lift its block of this whistleblower and actually allow the complaint itself and perhaps the whistleblower to talk to your committee in Congress. Is that true?

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): Well, we don`t know yet. I mean, this is what they`re saying publicly. We don`t know also whether they`re going to be limitations that the White House attempts to place on this whistleblower. We want to make sure that we get the full complaint, that we get the inspector general`s report, and that that whistleblower is allowed to share with Congress anything that whistleblower believes is evidence of misconduct or malfeasance within the contours of the statute. So I take nothing for granted with this crowd in the White House. The mere fact that the White House which may be the subject of the complaint, we don`t know yet it, has a role in deciding at all whether and how this whistleblower can come forward is in and of itself disturbing.

HAYES: It`s your position that the White House should have nothing to do with this and that William Barr and the Department of Justice and we know the White House Counsel as has being reported are all activist in this. That in and of itself to your mind is inappropriate and possibly not lawful.

SCHIFF: Absolutely. The statute provides that once the director gets the complaint, they have seven days to turn it over to Congress but it shall be provided to Congress. That didn`t happen indeed we didn`t find out about that because the Director of National Intelligence told us hey, I`m not following the law for whatever reason. We only found out about because the Inspector General came to us and said the director is not following the law here. So that needs to be provided. There is no clause in the statute that allows the White House to weigh in. There`s no provision that allows the director to go and seek a legal opinion from lawyers that are representing the president to withhold a complaint that may involve the president. So there`s so much wrong with how this has been handled. But we`re determined we`re going to get this. We`re going to have the opportunity to hear from the whistleblower. We`re going to make sure that whistleblower is protected. And you know, I want to say what`s at stake here if indeed this complaint does involve the President`s interactions with Ukraine. It`s important people understand the history here which is we persuaded Ukraine to give up its nuclear weapons and said we will assure your territorial integrity if you do. Well, they did give up those weapons that it inherited from the Soviets. But the Soviets -- the Russians would later invade their country, they still occupied parts of that country, and on a bipartisan basis Congress approved military support to help Ukraine defend itself against Russia. And guess what, the president held that up just days before he would lean on the President of Ukraine to assist his political campaign by manufacturing dirt on his opponent. It`s hard to describe a worse abuse of office, a worse violation of his oath of office than those facts whether those are in the complaint or there`s more in the complaint or not. What the president has already admitted is a flagrant abuse of his oath of office.

HAYES: You said this -- you said it`s bad enough Trump sought help from a foreign power in the last election, it`s worse still he obstruct the investigation into misconduct, now he`s admitted using his office to coerce another country to interfere in 2020, I fully support the impeachment inquiry. Is it these set of facts that tipped you over to supporting impeachment?

SCHIFF: It is. And you know, Chris, as you know, I`ve been very reluctant to go down this path.

HAYES: You have.

SCHIFF: Let`s say it`s an extraordinary remedy and one that the Founders I think intended as a last resort since we have periodic elections. But the fact that we would have a president now by his own admission and after having sought foreign help in the last election, now using the power of his office to once again try to get foreign help by getting Ukraine to manufacture dirt on his opponent. I think that compels us to travel down the road towards impeachment. So I fully support the speaker`s decision.

HAYES: I want to ask a follow-up about what that process looks like in just one moment. But if we can, I just want to circle back to the whistleblower issue here. It is my understanding and you said this publicly that you`re in contact with the whistleblower`s attorney. How confident are you that you will be able to speak to the whistleblower and see that complaint in the next few days?

SCHIFF: Well, you know, it`s hard to say. I think that the hearing with the director is having the effect that I had hoped that it would, and that is forcing the administration`s hand. I told the director that I`m going to call on him not in closed session but to all the American people to explain why he`s the first director to withhold a complaint in violation of the statute. I don`t think that`s something the director wants to have to do. And so I imagine that he is pressuring the administration to give him the authority to release this complaint. But the long and the short of it is we`re going to insist that the whistleblower would be protected, that they come to Congress, that they have the full authority to discuss the substance of their complaint, and that we see the complete and unadulterated complaint. We have all too much experience, Chris, with the administration through their willing participants like Bill Barr misrepresenting official documents. The White House shouldn`t even have this complaint. The president says everybody has seen it. That in itself is a huge problem. But we`re not going to rely on the administration or its minions leading the Justice Department to tell us about anything that`s in it.

HAYES: Were you at all surprised by the president moving towards releasing the full transcript? Do you trust the White House enough to take that transcript and believe that that is an actual representation of what transpired?

SCHIFF: Well, you know, I think sadly it`s the case as you described that we cannot trust the administration with respect to anything that it produces. And so there are a couple of issues here. There`s the issue of whether whatever transcript they provide is the only transcript of this conversation or whether there are other readouts of that conversation, and whether they`ve cherry-picked and pick the best readout of that conversation. But there are also issues about whether this is just one piece, for example, of what the whistleblower may be complaining of. After all, this isn`t the president`s only interaction with Ukraine.

HAYES: Right.

SCHIFF: His interactions are also going through Rudy Giuliani, his personal lawyer. And if the president is urging Ukraine to meet with Giuliani, to give into Giuliani`s demands, then essentially he`s also speaking through Rudy Giuliani. So there`s a lot more at stake here than simply what will be reflected in the transcript.

HAYES: As to the process that is laid out, there was some debate today or reporting back and forth about what the process forward would be. Some reporting indicated there were discussions of a select committee. I guess would be the closest historical precedent and analog would be a Watergate committee. That`s not what`s happening. The chairs of the Oversight Committees collectively Judiciary and Oversight and yours among others are going to pursue your inquiries under the rubric of a formal impeachment inquiry. What does that mean, what does that look like, and what is the timeline?

SCHIFF: Well, I think that what it means in terms of this I think most urgent of allegations that is that the president was essentially tried to coerce a foreign leader to help his presidential campaign and withholding military support at the same time. The Intelligence Committee will continue leading that investigation of those -- that constellation of issues. If that results in sufficient evidence that we think an article of impeachment should be brought, that would be presented to the Judiciary Committee for them to vote on an article of impeachment. And similarly, if other committees reach that point with what their investigating, Oversight in the work they`re doing on the Emoluments Clause, the Judiciary Committee with the work it`s doing on obstruction of justice, that ultimately we will be recommending to our leadership and discussing with our caucus whether that means we need to bring up articles and what they would look like. But we haven`t gotten into I think the specifics of that because frankly, that`s putting the cart before the horse. Right now we need to make sure that we get the facts and in particular, we get the facts about the President`s egregious conduct vis-a-vis Ukraine.

HAYES: What do you -- how do you understand the White House`s actions in the last 24 hours in which it seems to be denial, then a kind of almost open admission to some of the main contours of the substance of what`s been reported about this, to some capitulation. I mean the transcript may be making the whistleblower available. There`s lots of people were sort of looking at this or looking at Mitch McConnell refusing to object to a unanimous consent resolution in the Senate and a bipartisan -- the Senate they`re saying is this for real or is there some strategy being played out here that I`m missing?

SCHIFF: Well, Chris, I think it`s a couple of things. First, I think the administration realizes this is going to come out. Ultimately the public is going to know about the President`s misconduct and they want to try to get ahead of it and they also want to try to shape it in the same way Bill Barr misled the country about what was involved. So you can already see the President trying to suggest to the country that hey if I didn`t specifically ask for a quid pro quo then there`s no problem here. You don`t need an explicit quid pro quo, you don`t need an implicit quid pro quo. Ukraine understands how it is entirely dependent on the United States, how it is entirely dependent on the goodwill of the President of the United States for military support, for financial support, for support among the international community. And when the President of the United States tells that country this is what I want you to do for me, much like James Comey said when the president said I`d like you to see if you can make this Flynn matter go away, that foreign country understands that not as a request but as this will be done or there are repercussions. He doesn`t have to make it explicit. It`s enough that he withheld this military support even as he is browbeating this president and his personal lawyer is browbeating Ukraine for help in their political campaign. So part of it is I think they know these facts are coming out. Part of it too though, Chris, is this is the pattern we see over and over. You asked for documents you should get, they refused. You subpoena you get something. You talk about bringing contempt you get a little more. Now I think the big club has been brought out and is forcing them to agree to provide the transcript and provide the whistleblower and that big club is the club of impeachment. I think but for that being brought out, the White House would not be relinquish this information.

HAYES: That is very -- all of that very illuminating and very interesting to hear directly from you Chair Schiff on this evening. Thank you so much for making time tonight.

SCHIFF: Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source