Dem Rep Schiff on Russia Probe: ‘Far Past Time We Subpoena the White House’

Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union,” while discussing reports about an unsent letter from President Donald Trump to former FBI director James Comey, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) said it was “probably far past time” for the House Intelligence Committee to “subpoena the White House” for any relevant documents.

Partial transcript as follows:

BASH: We learned this week that President Trump’s attorney, longtime attorney at the Trump organization Michael Cohen, during the beginning of the campaign, during the primary season, reached out to the Kremlin for assistance in building a Trump Tower in Moscow. Again, this was while President Trump’s campaign was underway.

How does that factor into your investigation?

SCHIFF: I think it’s very significant. And we had requested documents from Mr. Cohen. And not being satisfied, we subpoenaed Mr. Cohen for whatever records were relevant to our investigation.

It means, among other things, the president was dishonest when he said during the campaign that he had no business in Russia, wasn’t pursuing no business in Russia. So, yet another, I think, misleading statement by the administration about their relationship with Russia.

It’s also significant because if they were pursuing business in Russia during the campaign, that might’ve influenced the positions that the candidate took in a more pro-Russian direction.

After all, if they were going to be criticizing Putin, criticizing Russia, that would diminish the chances that this deal would go through.

So, I think it’s very significant. We, obviously, want to get to the bottom of it. And we expect, at some point, we’ll have Mr. Cohen come in and testify. We’ll also expect, I think, Mr. Sater to come in and testify, so we can understand this more fully.

BASH: Felix Sater, who is the man who was born in Russia, was a Russian immigrant, but also had been trying to coordinate this for the Trump organization, just quickly on this, how significant will it also be to find out in those deal talks who the financing and where the financing was going to come from?

SCHIFF: Well, this is, I think, part of a broader concern, and that is the whole range of allegations about potential money laundering or financial entanglement. This is a tactic that the Russians have used elsewhere.

And if there was any kind of financial transactions, either elicit or legal, that nonetheless Russians could hold over the president’s head because he’s denied having any financial interests in Russia or with the Russians, that could be leverage on the president’s future actions.

BASH: And, congressman, you started to get a lot of documents that you have subpoenaed. Is there an answer – an early answer to that question? Was there an attempt to money-launder?

SCHIFF: I can’t comment on any of the evidence. But that is, I think, one of the more serious allegations that we need to look at, that I think Bob Mueller needs to look at because anything that could exert a continuing influence, could shape US policy is among the most serious of allegations.

BASH: Another bit of news this week, “The New York Times” reported that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has a letter, a document that appears to show the real reason why President Trump fired James Comey.

It was a document that President Trump worked on, allegedly with Stephen Miller, one of his top aides. Have you seen that document?

SCHIFF: I have not seen the document. And we wrote to the White House, after the claim was made, that the president had tapes of his discussions with Comey to ask about anything memorializing any conversations with Comey.

They first responded by tweet and then by letter saying they didn’t have any such thing. If this is responsive to our letter, they need to produce it and it’s probably far past time for our committee to subpoena the White House to make sure we get all relevant documents.

BASH: So, that means what you know you’ve read in the newspaper. Having said that, you are an experienced prosecutor and you’ve been investigating this.

If the president and Stephen Miller said explicitly that they were – that he was firing James Comey because of the Russia investigation, is that obstruction of justice?

SCHIFF: It’s certainly further evidence of a potential obstruction of justice, and something that Mr. Mueller would have to consider. It’s something, I think, our committee also needs to get to the bottom of.

But, certainly, it’s consistent or would be consistent with what the president himself admitted. And the fact that it’s in such sharp contrast to what they initially said that this was about his handling of the Clinton email investigation is further evidence of an attempt to conceal the real motives.

So, yes, it is potential evidence of obstruction of justice.

(h/t RCP Video)

Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN

COMMENTS

Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.