Schiff fires back after McCarthy threatens to remove him from intel committee

Welcome

back

to the State of the Union. The January Sixth

committee

will release its report next month, but some staffers say it may not represent all of its findings. Sources told The Washington Post that they felt Republican Congresswoman Liz Cheney was only interested in evidence related to former President Trump, prompting a fire

back

from a spokesperson for Cheney and also one on the

committee

. Here with me now to discuss January 6 and many other issues is a member of that committee, Democrat Adam Schiff. Thank you very much for attending. Let's start with the Post report, which was a truly remarkable report.

Staff were told that the Jan. 6 final report would likely focus almost entirely on Donald Trump, potentially leaving out a significant amount of the report and the committee's investigation of him and other areas. That's what the Post said. It's true? No. I mean, I certainly hope not. I would like our report to be as broad and inclusive as possible. We are discussing as a committee among the members what belongs in the body of the report, what belongs in the appendices of the report. What is beyond the scope of our investigation? And we will make those decisions collaboratively.

You know, I think one of the things that has made our committee so successful is that we have worked extremely well together. That doesn't mean we always agree on everything, but it does mean we have a lot of respect for each other. And we get to the goal, which is to provide the American people with a complete account of what happened on January 6th. That has certainly been the public perception of it and the public face of the committee. But there appears to be a different story, at least in some parts of the committee behind the scenes.

Spokesperson Liz Cheney issued a statement accusing her own committee's staff of trying to introduce, quote, liberal bias into the report. Here's what this quote says: Cheney will not accept any narrative that suggests that Republicans are inherently racist or that they smear men and women in law enforcement or that suggest that every American who believes that God has blessed America is a white supremacist And then a committee spokesperson accused disgruntled staff of, quote, cowardice and said they are helping Donald Trump and others responsible for the January 6 violence. That is a remarkable statement. You know, I don't think the back and forth is particularly useful.

The committee and I don't want to get involved in that. Let's reach a consensus on the report. We are very close to that now. We're close to putting down the pen and publishing it. And I think the report will be presented in a, I hope, very complete manner. What happened, what led to that attack and all the circumstances surrounding it. We will also publish the evidence, which may be the most important, the voluminous transcripts, documents and emails. We want to make sure that's presented to the American people. We certainly don't want the Jim Jordans of the world to pick something that hasn't been revealed and make a false or misleading narrative out of it.

Then the country will have the evidence that it will have our report. And I am enormously proud of what we have done and we will be proud of the final result. Well, I was going to ask you about that. Jim Jordan has already said that he will be the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. He or she will likely review the evidence you left out. You are saying that there will be no evidence that is not made public. All tests will be made public. Now, we're going to have to make sure that we eliminate that evidence for personally identifiable information, that the evidence that we provide protects people's safety.

Does it put them at risk? So there are things we are going to have to do in that regard. But yes, we want to present the evidence to the American people that supports the hearings that we have held, as well as the report that we will publish that will be a complete picture. A few weeks after January 6, you said that the attack on the Capitol was, quote, a massive

intel

ligence and security failure that must be thoroughly investigated. There were nine public hearings. None specifically focused on exactly that, on security and

intel

ligence failures. Will they be detailed in the final report?

I certainly hope they do, and I'm advocating for that. I think that's part of the bigger picture of why the Capitol was vulnerable to attack. What intelligence we had, what intelligence we missed, what intelligence was put before the authorities. Are you encountering resistance? I'm understanding it. You know, I don't want to get into our internal discussions. I think we will reach a common agreement. Some of this is what belongs in the body of the report, what belongs in the separate appendices. You know, what can be corroborated. We want to make sure we have all the facts nailed down.

That has been part of the reason our committee has been so successful. And we want it to continue being that way. I want to keep going forward. But before doing so, there appears to be tension surrounding the committee's vice chair, Liz Cheney. One former staffer told the Washington Post that people who worked for the committee became discouraged when they felt she had become, quote, a Cheney 20, 24 campaign issue. I've never seen it that way. And I think his role on the committee has been indispensable. I have enormous respect for her and for Adam Kinzinger. They have shown a lot of courage and guts as something that is in very short supply.

In the Republican Party these days. So the committee would not have been the same without the participation of both. And I have nothing but respect for both of them. As you well know, the man who was trying to be an orator. Republican Kevin McCarthy says he wants to expel you from the Intelligence Committee, the committee you now chair, because of your handling of Trump's Russia investigation, and specifically that you repeatedly claimed there was direct evidence of collusion and direct collusion that was not found. materializes. What is your response to McCarthy? Well, McCarthy apparently doesn't think it's collusion.

If his campaign manager provides internal polling data and battle strategies in key states to engage in Russian intelligence while the Russians help his campaign. But most Americans would call that collusion. McCarthy's problem is not what I have said about Russia. McCarthy's problem is that he can't make it to 18 without Marjorie Taylor Greene, Paul Gosar and Matt Gaetz. And that's why he will do everything they ask of him. And right now they are asking me to be

remove

d from my committees. And he is willing to do it. He is willing to do anything they ask of him.

And that is the problem. Kevin McCarthy has no ideology. He doesn't have a basic set of beliefs. It's very difficult to reach a team just that way. It's even harder to stay at 18. That's his problem. So he will misrepresent my history. He will misrepresent Eric Swalwell or Ilhan Omar or whatever he needs to do to get the QAnon caucus votes within this conference. He's not the only one. The incoming supervisory president. James Comer told Punchbowl News in an interview. I don't think congressional investigations have much credibility now. I blame Adam Schiff for that. But both sides are also guilty of past investigations.

I want to change that. What is your answer? Well, Coburn doesn't believe in the Russia investigation. He doesn't believe the Ukraine investigation. He doesn't believe in the investigation. January 6 and why? Because those are investigations into Donald Trump's serial abuse of power, and Colmer and Jordan and McCarthy will do nothing but drag Donald Trump's back. Someone, as you point out, who sits down to dinner with anti-Semites, who sits down to dinner with fanatics, who does not condemn them. With them they are making common cause. And so they will do it. So what and they will say what they need to get along with Donald Trump.

Our time is over. But I just have to ask you if the Republicans quote you when they take power where you can play. Did you know? We will have to consider the validity of the subpoena, but I would certainly consider my obligation, the administration's obligation to follow the law, and the fact that they disrespected the law, is not a precedent that I expect to be widely followed. But we will have to analyze the legitimacy or lack of legitimacy of what they do.