Return to Transcripts main page

WOLF

Interview with Rep. Adam Schiff; House Intel Committee Ramps Rump Russia/Trump Investigation; Dozens Killed in Toxic Gas Attack in Syria. Aired 1:30-2p ET

Aired April 4, 2017 - 13:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:34:13] WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: The House Intelligence Committee has now ramped up its investigation into Russian meddling in the U.S. presidential election. After canceling meetings last week, the committee is now back to work on looking into Russia's attempt to influence the 2016 presidential election and whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.

Joining us now is Congressman Adam Schiff, a California Democrats. He's the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee.

Congressman, thank for joining us.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF, (D-CA), RANKING MEMBER, HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: Good to be with you.

BLITZER: Is there any new evidence that you've seen about collusion between Trump associates and Russians during the election?

SCHIFF: I can't go into the particulars of the investigation. I can say that on a daily basis we continue to get new information that's pertinent to our investigation. Today, got additional information that could be very relevant. In terms of the content or whether it bears on the issue of collusion or coordination or other aspects of the investigation, i'm not at liberty to discuss.

[13:35:12] BLITZER: That's the major thrust of the House Intelligence Committee investigation, whether or not there was any collusion, is that right?

SCHIFF: That's certainly one of the core issues we're investigating. We're also looking at what was the U.S. government response to the hacking and dumping the information. What did the FBI do? What can we learn from this? How do we develop a better response to any subsequent attack? Because of course, the intelligence communities have concluded this was not a one off. They'll do it again. And we found the assessment put out by the intention community both classified and unclassified was sound. It was based on the accurate intelligence that they got. We're looking at the raw materials to make sure they reached the right conclusions.

BLITZER: You're working with the FBI criminal investigation that James Comey announced has been taking place since July. You're trying to make sure whatever you do doesn't interfere with that investigation, is that right?

SCHIFF: This is certainly a priority for the committee, I think for the Senate Intelligence Committee as well, and that is how do we conduct these two Congressional investigations while the FBI is doing their own investigation where we're not stepping on their toes, they're not stepping on ours. That is a lot easier said than done. It goes against the grain for the FBI to share much in terms of what they're investigating. But at a certain point, when we get information we believe the FBI needs to chase down, we want to share with them. We hope that the FBI will also coordinate with us to the degree that they're allowed to.

BLITZER: You've come here, you just had a closed-door briefing meeting with your committee, right?

SCHIFF: We did. We've actually had a couple hearings this week. We had a hearing yesterday on some of the urgent, what we call hot spots around the world. We also had a round table this morning. Neither of those were on Russia-related topics but the committee continues to do it its work.

BLITZER: These hearings, these meetings, behind closed doors, classified, chaired by the Chairman Devin Nunes, right?

SCHIFF: Yes.

BLITZER: Are you getting back -- despite all the controversy that has erupted, is he still capable of doing the job? You called on him to recuse himself from the Russian meddling investigation.

SCHIFF: I did. What my recommendation was is not that the chairman should step down from his chairmanship but rather we ought to continue on the ordinary course of our business, as we did today. But when it came to the White House investigation and the investigation of Russia and what not, that segment of the committee's work, very important segment, he ought to step aside from because of this difficulty in separating his role as a surrogate for the president and the committee role. That's not a decision the speaker concurred with. Didn't concur with my recommendation, at least for the time being. He will continue in that position as far as the speaker is concerned. So we will work together as best we can. But I raise that issue because I thought it did put a cloud over the integrity of our investigation.

BLITZER: Is that cloud still there or is it being removed?

SCHIFF: Well, you know, I think to the degree that the White House still won't explain its role in providing these materials to the chairman, to the degree that still remains in secrecy, why did the White House want to hide its hand on this, that cloud persists. Nonetheless, we're not going anywhere. If we were to walk away from this investigation in the House, it would literally cut in half the resources devoted to the Russian investigation. It's just too important this go forward.

BLITZER: He's seen this information, Devin Nunes, the Republican chairman, that the White House made available to them, and you have received this information. The rest of the committee, the House Intelligence Committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee, they're about to get access to that information. When they see that information, and I know it's classified, will they conclude that Susan Rice, for example, President Obama's former national security adviser, did something wrong in unmasking the names of Americans -- American citizens who were incidentally caught up in surveillance activities by the U.S. government against foreigners?

SCHIFF: As you probably know, I can't discuss the contents of what I saw at the White House. I can say that we did make a request, I made the request those materials be shared with the entire House Intelligence Committee and our Senate counterpart. We understand from one of the responsible agencies they're fine with. That we think that will go forward. I expect that will be fairly imminent. I think frankly that's the process that should have taken place from the beginning. If anyone in the White House had a concern about any of these materials, they should have been shared and not gone through this charade we saw over the last two weeks.

In terms of broader issue of incidental collection, I can't comment on anyone who was involved in masking or unmasking materials, but I can say you would expect in the course of listening to foreigners, talking to foreigners, that they might be discussing who the next president of the United States might be or they might be discussing issues involving Russia or issues involving China or issues of national significance in which prominent people might be mentioned. In ordinary business, those names are masked, even though when you read the report, you know who they're talking about. There are times when it's important to say, in order to evaluate the significance of this, I would like to know who the person is, the agency ultimately makes that decision to unmask.

And I think what people are conflating is the decision to unmask so that national security official can view a document is not equivalent to leaking it to the public. And it's certainly not the equivalent of saying that this is wiretapping or surveillance of Mr. Trump or his team when he was Candidate Trump. So I think to that degree, that people are making that suggestion, again, it's an effort to say don't look at the Russia investigation. Don't look at the ties to the Trump --

(CROSSTALK)

[13:41:10] BLITZER: But Chairman Nunes wrote a letter asking for more information about the unmasking of names of American citizens because you were concerned, right?

SCHIFF: We did that as a part of our ordinary oversight responsibilities. That's something what we do quite often. If there's ever a concern raised about whether or not the procedures are being used right, whether names are being properly masked, that's what we look at. And the fact that we made that request and we still have that strange interlude with the White House after that, you have to say, what prompted that? What was the urgency when we've already asked for materials about incidental collection? And I have to think the urgency was created at that Monday hearing when James Comey said not only there was no truth to the president's claim that he was surveilled or wiretapped or what have you, but when the FBI director said that the Trump campaign team was under an FBI investigation. I think this was the response to that rather breath taking hearing.

BLITZER: Let me be precise. Have you seen any evidence at all that Susan Rice, the former president's national security adviser, did anything wrong, whether illegal or unethical, in seeking to unmask the names of American citizens?

SCHIFF: You know, I can't, again, speak to any specific persons or whether there are indications and classified materials. I can say this. We are just beginning to look at the issue of incidental collection. I haven't seen anything that indicates that there was some effort to surveil or wiretap Candidate Trump and his team. There's nothing to justify the tweets that he sent out. But we will be more than happy to review any concerns that are raised about incidental collection.

But what the American people need to understand is that encompasses often just talking about a person. That's incidental collection. That's a far cry from what is being suggested here by the president that he was the target of wiretapping and eavesdropping.

BLITZER: So do you think the White House now is simply trying to distract the American's public attention from the main thrust of your investigation, the Russian meddling in the U.S. presidential election?

SCHIFF: I think there are a few things going on. There is in the first instance a strong desire by the White House that we lose our focus, that we not pursue the investigation of Russia, particularly as it might impact the Trump campaign. I think that's priority number one for the president and the administration. I think there have been pre-existing concerns among many Libertarians about a different issue, and that is the issue of whether incidental collection and the minimization procedures are adequate. I think they're using this pre- existing concern as a way to drive attention away from the Russia investigation. And then you have a third element, which I think is appealing to the "Breitbart" crowd, and that is a continuing attack on Susan Rice. I lived with that attack for two years as a member of the Benghazi Committee where they spent two years trying to find something to criticize her about and ended up with nothing. All she did was go on a Sunday talk show and describe it accurately as it was described to her. They had gotten it wrong through no-fault of Susan Rice. But nonetheless, she seems to be a target for the hard right.

BLITZER: Would it be appropriate to call her to testify before your committee?

SCHIFF: I can't comment on the content. If she had any evidence relevant to the Russian investigation, if she or anyone else has any information or concerns, she's also welcome to come in. But again, you know, I don't want people to infer, as I think that my friends on the hard right would like, the fact that I won't discuss classified information is not meant to imply anything. I find it more than ironic that some of the same people who are condemning leaks of classified information are condemning me for not leaking information about these classified documents.

[13:45:38] BLITZER: I know you've got to run. Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, Carter Page, Michael Flynn, are they already scheduled to appear before your committee?

SCHIFF: We don't have dates on our witnesses, but we certainly made a lot of progress. We've exchanged witness lists. I think we near agreement on bringing in both the witnesses that we want, the witnesses he wants. Prior to doing that, we need to get the documents from these witnesses so that we'll understand what questions we want to ask. Obviously, some of these folks, we may only get one crack at. We need to be prepared and we're not going to allow ourselves to be jammed because the witnesses want to come in before we're ready to question them. We do seem to be back on track in terms of identifying the witnesses and moving forward with the investigation.

BLITZER: Is Michael Flynn the only potential witness seeking immunity?

SCHIFF: Well, he's certainly the only one whose lawyers talked publicly about it. Highly irregular process. I think some of the commentary about that has been quite accurate. That's not generally how a defense counsel operates in advertising to the public. So we bring I think a healthy skepticism. There's also a lot we can find out about the circumstances involving Mr. Flynn's conversation with Ambassador Kislyak, about his dishonesty that's been reported, without having to grant him or anyone else immunity. Obviously, we want to pursue those other leads before we make any kind of decision like that.

BLITZER: I know you've got to run.

Congressman Adam Schiff, thank you for joining us.

SCHIFF: You bet. Good to be with you.

BLITZER: Coming up, at least 10 children, dozens of others killed in the suspected chemical attack in Syria. You'll hear from one of the doctors treating the victims, and how the United States is responding. Our Christiane Amanpour is standing by live with new details.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:51:50] BLITZER: Returning to our breaking news story, a suspected chemical attack in the Syrian town of Idlib.

We want to warn our viewers, the details and the pictures are graphic.

The Aleppo Media Center reports 70 people died in the suspected chemical attack, including many children.

One doctor who spoke to CNN said 500 wounded covered the floors of an entire hospital from the patients' rooms to the operating rooms to the hallways.

Our chief international correspondent, Christiane Amanpour, is joining us to discuss this.

Christiane, what a heartbreaking story. You had a chance to speak to a doctor who treated some of the victims of this deadly attack. Tell our viewers what he said.

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRSPONDENT: Well, it is really a terrible thing that's happened there and it's in Idlib, as you say, and I did speak to a doctor, Faris al Jundi (ph), who was one of the first responders. He told me he had never seen anything like it. He described patients frothing at the mouths, short of breath, choking and all the rest of it. He said the actual symptoms were for him very reminiscent of a nerve gas attack. And so this is what he told me about what he saw there.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FARIS AL JUNDI (ph), PHYSICIAN (through translation): I saw children dead and I saw an entire family consisting of a mother and three children all dead. And I didn't see any military nature among the dead. There was no one who appeared to be a fighter at all.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: And so also, we've seen these pictures of responders trying to do the best they can with the very, very limited tools at hand. So they were trying to hose down, wash the victims including with smoke and explained to me, you just have to try to do everything that you can to get the gas off their bodies and then they try to send those that were able to be transferred to Turkey for better treatment. They also found fragments of what he described as the barrel bombs that had dropped this poisonous substance. Still don't know what it is but people are saying that because of the symptoms, it's a nerve gas of some kind and could possibly be sarin, which would be the first time a massive attack of that kind took place since 2013 -- Wolf?

BLITZER: It's an awful situation. Christiane, you know Sean Spicer said the chemical attack today was, and i'm quoting him now, "a consequence of the past administration's weakness." Can the previous Obama administration be blamed for what happened now in Syria?

AMANPOUR: Well, look, I think the facts are very clear that President Obama did put down this red line. He said that my red line is chemical attacks on civilians by the Assad regime. When they did that back in 2013, he backed away from implementing punitive measures. Many people believe that was an opportunity, that the Assad regime was quaking in its boots. There were aircraft carriers and ships ready to take measures in that regard and then it didn't happen. They got emboldened. The fact of the matter is, Wolf, this administration doesn't want to take on President Assad. And they said that was not what the U.S. was going to do. It was just going to fight ISIS. This could continue, these kind of war crimes, crimes against humanity, which is what the Turks are calling what happened today -- Wolf?

[13:55:29] BLITZER: Certainly, a war crime, no doubt about that.

Christiane Amanpour, thank you. An important note for our international viewers. "Amanpour" is coming

up at the top of the hour.

For our viewers in North America, NEWSROOM with Brooke Baldwin will start right after this quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:00:01] BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN ANCHOR: Here we go. You're watching CNN. I'm Brooke Baldwin. Thank you for being with me.

We begin with the latest of what some are describing as a Washington spy drama, shadowy characters, secret meetings, and a Russian plan to set up back-channel communications between --