Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), who was recently booted off the House Intelligence Committee, faced scrutiny during an interview on Sunday over past examples of him allegedly politicizing intelligence information for partisan gain.
Schiff made the remarks during an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union” with host Dana Bash while talking about losing his spot on the committee.
“You said that there was direct evidence of the fact that Donald Trump colluded with Russia back in 2016. Special counsel Robert Mueller said in his report — quote — ‘The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government,'” Bash said. “Republicans argue that’s proof that you used your position the Intelligence Committee to intentionally mislead Americans, which is why you should not be on that committee.”
Schiff claimed that the report did not say that and that the report revealed that then-candidate Donald Trump’s campaign manager shared internal campaign polling data with a Russian agent. “To most Americans, that is collusion,” he claimed. “Now, whether it’s proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime of conspiracy — that’s what Bob Mueller was talking about — I have always distinguished between the two.”
Bash responded by highlighting another example that Republicans point to when they mention the problems that they have with Schiff being on the Intelligence Committee.
“Ahead of the first Trump impeachment, you said the committee had not spoken to a whistle-blower,” Bash said. “In fact, that turned out not to be true.”
“When I was asked the question, I thought they were referring to whether we had brought the whistle-blower in,” Schiff claimed. “And I should have been more clear in my answer.”
Bash noted that “The Washington Post” fact-check team said that his claim about whistleblower were false.
WATCH:
Democrat Adam Schiff triples down on the Russian collusion hoax. pic.twitter.com/T4HmvT1QVe
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) January 29, 2023
"Ahead of the first Trump impeachment, you said the committee had not spoken to a whistleblower. In fact, that turned out not to be true."
ADAM SCHIFF: "I should've been more clear." pic.twitter.com/6qZsQbTwdE
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) January 29, 2023
TRANSCRIPT:
BASH: And, Congressman, I will start with you.
You said that there was direct evidence of the fact that Donald Trump colluded with Russia back in 2016. Special counsel Robert Mueller said in his report — quote — “The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government.”
Republicans argue that’s proof that you used your position the Intelligence Committee to intentionally mislead Americans, which is why you should not be on that committee.
REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): If you read the Mueller report, he makes clear even in the first few pages of the report that he states no conclusion on whether Donald Trump and his campaign colluded with the Russians.
But what he does reveal in his report, what we found in our investigation is that Donald Trump’s campaign manager was sharing internal campaign polling data and a strategy for key battleground states with an agent of Russian intelligence, while that same unit of Russian intelligence was helping the Trump campaign, both with the hacking-and-dumping operation, as well as a social media operation to elect Donald Trump.
To most Americans, that is collusion. Now, whether it’s proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime of conspiracy — that’s what Bob Mueller was talking about — I have always distinguished between the two.
But let me just set the record straight. This is only one of a shifting series of rationalizations and pretexts that McCarthy is using.
BASH: Well, let me give you another. He says that this is part of the pattern. Ahead of the first Trump impeachment, you said the committee had not spoken to a whistle-blower. In fact, that turned out not to be true.
You know “The Washington Post” said so in their fact-check.
SCHIFF: “The Washington Post” identified that, yes, before the person became a whistle-blower, they sought advice from the committee.
When I was asked the question, I thought they were referring to whether we had brought the whistle-blower in. And I should have been more clear in my answer.
But, again, let’s be clear what’s really going on here. McCarthy has said Adam Schiff prosecuted the case against Trump. Ukraine impeachment was a hoax. He’s given 15 explanations. The only real explanation is, he needs Marjorie Taylor Greene’s vote. He needs Paul Gosar’s vote. He wants to retaliate for their removal from the committee.
And, apparently, he believes I was very effective in exposing his misconduct, Donald Trump’s misconduct. And that’s what they’re trying to stop. So, I think that he benefits from having these smears repeated. And that’s part of what he gains from it. But this is a pretext, and nothing more.
……..
BASH: Well, let me ask you, Congressman.
You are Jewish. And you have said that you were worried about some tropes that the congressman (sic) used, and — which again, I want to be clear, you apologized for that, for that one, all about the Benjamins. Do you believe that the pattern that your caller here has put out there is, as Republicans are saying and some Democrats say, rise to the level of antisemitism?
SCHIFF: Dana, I believe that this is all a pretext.
And if you look at the leader of the Republican Party, Donald Trump, he is dining with white nationalists and antisemites. The people that Kevin McCarthy just put on committees like Marjorie Taylor Greene and others are speaking at white nationalist rallies.
This is, as my colleague said, Bakersfield B.S. This is all pretextual. And I don’t accept the premise that this has anything to do with the conduct of any of the Democratic members. This is merely the weakness of Kevin McCarthy’s speakership, that he’s so reliant on these extreme members.
I mean, how can you, on the one hand, suggest that these are — some kind of legitimate basis for unseating Democrats on committees, and put someone like George Santos on any committee? The hypocrisy just grabs you by the throat.
So I don’t want to dignify the pretext that they’re giving for any of us. What they’re doing is really catering to the most extreme members of their conference.