tv Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Rep. Adam Schiff CSPAN June 14, 2018 8:00am-8:22am EDT
rules. >> ladies and gentlemen, please join the conversation by using hashtag axios360 on social media and now please turn your attention to the stage. >> one big thing you need to know, this is just the beginning ♪ ♪ >> the only thing that cuts through his information about you. -- information of value. >> please welcome axis executive editor michael allen. >> good morning. thank you become come out. i've always wanted my met park style music so now we've got it.
thank you very much for coming out so early. thanks to the axios events staff was put on this great event and today in celebration of pride month we have rainbow egg bowls. this might be a fanciest food so far. hope you got the poached egg with quinoa, seasonal greens and rainbow toppings. appreciate all the people right behind us who have gone -- before breakfast. thanks to c-span for carrying us like we appreciate that. thank the bank of america for making these conversations possible. we'll be hearing about the companies responsible growth strategy so our thanks to the bank of america. axios makes you smarter faster on the topics that matter seek and make better decisions. today we'll be taking up some of the biggest topics across our subject of business tech, politics. the guests will hear from in a
moment, kim hart with the fcc chairman ajit pai. kim and the chairman run into each other at chick-fil-a on the weekends and so this time we will see that in a little more formal setting. our first guest was a federal prosecutor. he was a committee chairman in the state senate of my home state, california. in the house he has been a leader on foreign-policy, on the free press and is now the ranking member of the house intelligence committee it from the great state of california congressman adam schiff. welcome to axios. [applause] >> thank you. >> we are going to start with a quiz. i am going to describe a public figure and you're going to tell me who it is. one, very talented. number two, very smart guy. three, great negotiator. >> well, sadly, that fits the
description of kim jong-un. >> it is. >> you know what a surreal world you are in when that's the description of the north korean dictator, and weak, obnoxious and dishonest is the description we give the canadian prime minister. >> what do you think of that? what is the consequence of that? why does that matter? >> what do i make of that? i make it that we are at greater odds with our allies now than ever before in my lifetime. >> what's the consequence of that for our guests? >> the consequences that are security is weakened. our alliances are weakened. when we need our allies there is less likelihood that they will respond in kind because we have ridiculed them. we have condemned them at times. we've been sold at the leadership and we've essentially told them that we don't value those alliances as we used to, that we are more interested in cozying up to despotic regimes,
that we have nothing but sustain for some of our closest partners. that you may get away with when you don't need them immediately, but when you do that's a real problem. >> you are a frequent tweeter and memorable review, the sum to said one trip and it is mission accomplished. >> yes. this was the president coming back from korea saying we can also sleep well now, nuclear problem solved. which is one to have a nuclear armed country as a threat to the united states. another danger to the country to have an extraordinarily naïve president. if this president thinks we can now sleep better, problem solved, that's preposterous. interestingly, the president contrast how we felt last year. we were worried last question e the president was threatening nuclear war with north korea, and just we would rather have him talking to the north korean regime than we would comparing the size of our nuclear buttons.
but a a vague promise for futue denuclearization undefined is that much of security guarantee, and we give up i think a great deal to obtain even that. the fact that the president uses the north koreans own language to describe these joint military exercises which are in our interest -- wargames, provocative. this is how north korea likes to describe them. it's held china likes to describe them. and to adopt basically the language of our adversaries, tells me that far from being good nutrition, the president is, in fact, a terrible negotiator. he may be good at marketing himself but in terms of negotiating on behalf of our interest, , he's done a terrible job. >> those of you tweeting at hashtag axios360 using the president art of the deal is a what it is cracked up to be. >> apparently it's just of the art of marketing. marketing doesn't make you safer. we still have a dangerous nuclear armed north korea but we
have one now that faces a week and sanction fishing because china has decide decided relaxd sanctions as with making sure north korea does and -- dozen very too far. russian has relaxed sanctions as would make a our life difficult. so the north korean position is far elevated. the north korean president has put itself on par with the u.s. president. for people in north korea, those are suffering in the gulags and others suffering of the kinds of deprivation also north korea, they now look at the president and his actions have been ratified by the president of the united states who called him a smart guy and a tough guy and he did what he had to do and did what all those people in the gulags and nevermind the family members here had execute. that's all okay according to our president. >> on twitter you said and get republicans stay solid. behind the scenes when you're talking to republican members in the gym or in the cloak room, what do they say about this?
>> the most shocking things that are here from time to time as leader, one of the investigations involving russian, i wonder sometimes my republican colleagues, senior republican colleagues say keep doing what you were doing. this is a heresy, but the fact that they privately viewed as important that someone is holding the president accountable but they can't do it themselves is very telling. it's also telling that the only republicans apparently willing to speak out by those the party for reelection. there is i think a real crave in silent on the gop. to recognize what this president is doing as destructive, they recognize of the threat he posed a a system of checks and balances that they don't want to speak out. now it will be even less likely to speak out. at what level, i suppose you can understand it. it's a pure political calculus
if the president craters, then perhaps they cried with them, they lose the majority, lose the chairmanships. on another level that is inexplicable because what's the point of being there if when the country need you, you are not willing to stand up, not one to speak out, not willing to defend the rule of law, and why be there? when this chapter is written it would be harshly condemnatory of our president and it may result some of the strongest criticism for the gop congress. >> you've talked about the lack of real oversight, checks and balances by republicans. how will that change it in january democrats control the house? what you think of the likelihood of that? >> at this point it's very likely. >> seventy, 60% chance? >> i don't know if i i can givt a percentage but i would say if the election were held today the house would flip. >> what we change as far as oversight for checks and also? >> a lot with change. first, the policy priorities would very much change.
we would do everything we could to end this practice of dividing children from the parents at the border. we would be focused on trying to improve peoples ability to put bread on the table, deal with these very disruptive changes to our economy that are the result of initial globalization but now far more result of automation. we would be working to make sure we protect it gives access to healthcare, not taking away by attacking the protection for people with pre-existing conditions. but in addition to what would we be affirmatively doing as a policy matter, the congress of the united states would be back in the oversight business, back in the business of providing a check and balance on the unrestricted speedy what are you going to plunge into first? >> a whole host of things. one illustration, two weeks ago the president abruptly change course on sanctions over zte, the chinese telecom. >> a company that house intelligence committee report in 2012 is one of the first to
sound the alarm. >> yes, finding it was an espionage threat. something our intelligence agencies concur with. this is comic is violent sanctions on north korea and iran and lie to us about it. in a tweet because this how we operate now by twitter the president reverses course inexplicably saying in the tweets i'm going to reconsider this deal because i'm concerned about chinese jobs. now, that made no sense whatsoever. what's the expedition for this abrupt change of course of zte? it could be one of three things. it could be, number one, that he is, in fact, the worst negotiator in the world and is giving china something they desperately want even before the negotiation is complete. it's a before we negotiate in earnest i'm going to give this away. number two, it could be that he was so desperate for deal with north korea that is willing to give china anything if china
will simply not create a problem in terms of negotiation with north korea. yet another single to the kim regime that this president needs to get up and walk out of iran deal more than kim does which is another huge problem. or the third possibility is china decided at the same time to invest $500 million and a trump branded properties in indonesia. which of these three explanations busy i get one, use some combination? >> you have subpoena power, what would you do? >> we could find out. what's the answer? why this abrupt course? we could do oversight of this transaction in indonesia which barely got attention because in a world in which so many bad things are happening every day with this administration and are so many allegations of corruption, how do you keep track of them all? we would look into that. >> how aggressively the, you can look into e-mails, budgets, call for testimony. how aggressive and interest would you say you're going to
be? >> look, i think in order to protect the public we need to begin with hearings on these issues and see whether there's any there. if you look also at something just with the last couple weeks have really got attention, it was revealed the president was secretly meeting with the postmaster general to browbeat her into raising postal rates on amazon as a way of punishing jeff bezos in the "washington post," another attack on the free press. we should have your with the postmaster general to find out is that what happened, what with those discussions like, what was the argument the present was making for raising rates on amazon? and find out whether the president is taking action inconsistent with the first amendment. >> journalist love the free example to which a third area or third additional that you would like to see come testify, something else you want to pull back the curtain on? >> you could probably have any number of hearings on the decimation of the state
department, on scott pruitt, any day of the week. but and our committee in the intel committee and vis-à-vis the rush investigation, and issue a very concern is not been investigated in congress, is the issue of money laundering. that is, with the russians laundering money through the trump organization because of this the leverage the russians have of the president of the united states? to me that is far more potentially compromising any salacious video. >> you believe that happen? >> i don't know. there are credible allegations that would be negligent of us to -- >> do think it's possible? >> it is certainly possible. we know that the trump organization had deep difficulty getting any legitimate financing from u.s. banks. the only bank that we do business with them because of their business practices was deutsche bank which was fine hundreds of lives of dollars by the state of new york for laundering russian money. we also know that according to the president own sons
irrigating a ton of money from russia that was a disproportionate share of assets. there are other -- when you look at the trump properties the money laundering. so i think for us to gamble and not know, with the nation secure to come is this what's driving this affinity for vladimir putin and russia, or is it else? we ought to find out so they can tell the country it's true or it's not true. >> the house intelligence committee democrats, the minority, continues the rush investigation, continuing to obtain documents. what's the most important thing for you still to learn that you don't yet know? >> you are right, what happened about two months ago was not the sensation of the rush investigation, merely cessation of the republican participation. in the one area we were charged to investigate, , the republicas decided they would rather not
know. they stopped the work on that but the democratic minority, , e continue to bring in witnesses, about half of the witnesses with fight show receptivity to coming before the committee even without the participation of the gop. >> what about the internet? >> the other half will have to be subpoenaed and this is a problem -- >> you plan to do that? >> we would if we had the subpoena power now. in terms of what we will do anything when we take back the majority, we will have to look at what's been done in the senate intelligence committee, look at what's been done by bob mueller and assess what remains to be done. this was the problem even when the majority was working on the investigation. that is, they wouldn't subpoena unwilling witnesses. the witnesses we did have come in when they refused to answer questions they wouldn't subpoena them to compel them to answer questions. >> the investigation will continue in the new year? >> i can come it will depend on what bob mueller has been able to do and whether bob mueller has been able to finish the job.
i think we should reserve judgment on what more will be necessary until we see what moore has already been done. >> it sounds like if you get the majority, if you have subpoena power it sounds like there are people you want to hear from that you have heard from you plan to pursue that? >> there's shortly people wanted from that you get a complete investigation without hearing from. if, however, they been interviewed by bob mueller, if bob mueller has already been able to draw conclusions on certain issues, that will weigh heavily in when we think that needs further investigation but there may be certain matters and money laundering may very well be one of them or even bob mueller has not looked into it. because he is happen given the scope. i do know that is the case and that hope bob mueller is investigate the issue of money laundering. what is owned as the prosecutor is you follow the money, but the president has done everything possible to deter bob mueller from doing that by trying to draw a red line. i don't think the president has
any right to draw any red lines and i think it should be ignored if it arises within a rush investigation it off investigate. >> last question. imagine you with the u.s. attorney in los angeles because a former federal prosecutor, someone watching the investigation, from what you seen, from what you know, from what you read what is the most likely outcome? >> i was an assistant u.s. attorney. i do want to give myself a promotion in hindsight. i think we are likely as a of things. we're likely to see further indictments. in the last indictment the special counsel indicted 13 russians over there surreptitious social media campaign and its interference in our election. there was a mention, no discussion of the russian hacking and dumping operation. that was something we know more about earlier than even the social media campaign. so why would bob mueller leave it out of the indictment? that was probably left out of the last indictment because that
part of the conspiracy either involves u.s. persons, that the issue of collusion or you haven't finished the investigation as to whether it should include u.s. persons. that indictment is coming. should the question whether it's russians only a russians and americans. i would also expect we would get a report on other issues, the justice button will get a report from bob mueller. it may be on both collusion and obstruction of justice. maybe in other issues as well. this is where rod rosenstein comes in and he's an important figure. it will be his decision whether that is shared with the congress, with the public or whether it is very good i think it should be shared with the public. it needs to be shared with congress. i think bob mueller, there's no constitutional bar to an indictment of the sitting president but i would think even if the evidence rises to that level, is more likely present that evidence to the justice department that seek an indictment and ask jurors
somewhere to decide the fate of the republic. >> we -- you have a great summer tradition with your son, now 15. road trip, i train trip, right? what is coming up? >> we're just having a conversation over dinner last night. i think we're going to go visit a friend at an army base in fort irwin. we may head off to the nearby biggest and then not be able to tell you what happened. and then we were thinking about climbing a mountain and i'm just trying to find one that's not too steep. >> thank you very much for joining axios. thank you very, very much. thank you very much, congressman schiff. [applause] >> appreciate it very much. think of you for being you. thank c-span for carrying this lie. we want to have respectful conversations. it would be a favor to me if you would continue to be courteous to all our guests which i appreciate. and now we are going to get a from the bank of america, chief
executive officer brian moynihan on the companies responsible growth strategy. thank you, bank of america. >> responsible growth means to me is very straightforward. the four elements, it's got to grow, the right way with the customers, wright risk management and on a sustainable basis. the rule of banks have success. our job is to help the community to and be successful. whatever might be driving it. whether it's via text or traditional manufacturer or anything in between our job is to affect unity the successful. to up its housing markets grow. what we have is that each piece piece,. >> please welcome axios managing editor kim hart.