JUDY WOODRUFF: And for more
on the attorney general's
testimony, I'm now joined by the

top Democrat on the House
Intelligence Committee.

He is Representative Adam
Schiff of California.

Congressman Schiff,
thank you for joining us.

I know you paid close
attention to what was said
today by the attorney general.

Did you come away with a better
understanding of what has
happened over the last year?

REP.

ADAM SCHIFF (D),
California: I did.

And what was notable to me was
the degree to which the attorney
general really corroborated

what is, I think, the most
significant of the meetings
that James Comey testified.

And that is, he did corroborate
that there was a meeting of
many people in the Oval Office.

And although he didn't say
it was at the president's
instruction, it was
pretty clear that it was.

Everyone left the room,
except for James Comey
and the president.

And the attorney general
acknowledged that he did linger,
that he was one of the last,

if not the last, to leave the
room, and also corroborated
the fact that, the following

day, Director Comey told him he
was essentially uncomfortable
with something that took place

in that meeting.

That tells me that James Comey's
testimony about that meeting
is far more accurate than

the president's statements about
that meeting, because, if there
wasn't something uncomfortable

about it, then why did the
director go the next day to
the attorney general and say,

don't leave me alone
again with the president?

The other point I would
make, Judy, is the one that
you have been discussing.

And that is, we cannot
accept this non-invocation
of privilege as a reason
to prohibit the Congress

from finding out whether the
attorney general wrote a memo
or wrote a letter along with

the deputy attorney general to
provide cover or pretext for
a decision they knew was made

on other grounds.

Now, I don't know if that's
the case, because he wouldn't
answer, but as it goes to the

very heart of whether
the president sought to
interfere or obstruct
the Russia investigation,

we need to use whatever
compulsory process is
necessary to get those answers.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And we heard
at the end of the meeting --
of the hearing, rather, the

chairman, Richard Burr, Senator
Burr, asked the attorney
general to go back to the White

House to see if there's more
of his communications with the
president and with anyone in the

White House that they can share.

Is that something that
you think is likely to
produce some answers?

REP.

ADAM SCHIFF: Well, I don't know.

I would certainly hope so.

I will say this, in light of
the conversation that you just
had with Walter Dellinger and

Mr. Terwilliger,
a couple things.

First is, the questions
that were asked of the
attorney general were
all easily anticipated,

so there were no
surprise questions here.

There was no reason why
the White House could
not have instructed the
attorney general whether

they were going to
invoke privilege or not.

So I don't buy the idea that
the attorney general couldn't
know in advance whether he

needed to invoke the privilege.

They didn't want him to.

They didn't want
the optic of it.

And that's not a good
reason for refusing to
answer the questions.

But, more than that, if the
attorney general allowed himself
to be used as a pretext to

give justification for a firing
that was made on other grounds,
that not only violates his

recusal.

It also potentially violates
the law or is a highly unethical
practice, and we need to

find out whether
that's the case.

We don't know, but we have an
obligation in our investigation,
Bob Mueller will in his,

to get the answer.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, how
do you get beyond his
refusal to answer, though?

If he's saying these were
privileged communications
that I had that stand
on precedent at the

Department of Justice, whether
they're written down or not,
how do you get through that?

REP.

ADAM SCHIFF: Well, I think
the process, if we're going to
live up with our institutional

responsibility in Congress,
is to go back to the White
House and say, we want answers

to these questions.

Are you invoking the privilege?

And, if they're not, we need
to bring the attorney general
back before either our committee

in the House or before the
Senate committee and demand
answers to those questions.

If they do invoke privilege,
then we may need to litigate
the contours of that privilege.

The privilege cannot
be used as a shield to
protect or hide potential
impropriety or illegality.

So, we may have to go to court
to pierce that privilege, but
we do need to get to the bottom

of this.

We have the powers and
institution to do it,
and I think we have
an ethical obligation

and a responsibility to
the country to do it.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Congressman,
were you struck by,
were you surprised when
the attorney general

said that he had not had, had
not sought any sort of briefing
on attempts by the Russians

to interfere in the
election last year?

REP.

ADAM SCHIFF: I was struck by it.

Certainly, during his time in
the Senate and as a member of
the Armed Services Committee,

when we have a hostile
power, Russia, interfering
in our internal affairs,
you would think he

would have an interest in that.

But, more than that, it
was an echo of Director
Comey's testimony also
that the president

showed no curiosity,
no interest, no concern
over the Russia hack.

The only element of it that
concerned him was how it
might impact him personally.

That says, I think, a lot
about where the president is
coming from, but it was quite

jarring given this was an
attack on our democracy
by a foreign power.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Congressman,
another thing I saw late this
afternoon after the hearing

concluded that the --
that Senator Dick Durbin,
who, of course, is in
the leadership among

Democrats in the Senate, was
saying that the attorney general
should step down based on

his testimony today, his --
and his performance in office.

Are you -- would
you go that far?

REP.

ADAM SCHIFF: Well, I would want
to pursue two things before
I would be prepared to go

that far.

And the first is to do whatever
investigation we need to do to
find out whether his testimony

today about what happened
or didn't happen at the
Mayflower is accurate
and can be corroborated,

or wasn't accurate, in which
case, we do need to consider
the remedies that Dick Durbin

talked about.

But, also, we need to get
answers to the questions
about what went into
the firing of Director

Comey.

And if he refuses and doesn't
have a legal basis to do so,
then, again, I think we may

end up where Senator Durbin is.

JUDY WOODRUFF: At this point,
just quickly, Congressman, are
you optimistic that Congress,

that your committee, the Senate
committee, are eventually
going to get to the bottom

of this?

REP.

ADAM SCHIFF: Well, you
know, I certainly hope so.

I think we have the look at
this in a very nonpartisan way
and try to, as best we can,

divorce ourselves
of the consequences.

But what is at stake here is
really our system of checks and
balances and whether we're going

to allow an administration not
to invoke privilege, but just to
say it's inconvenient for us to

tell you the answers.

It wouldn't reflect well on us,
so we're going to invoke some
inchoate privilege that doesn't

exist.

We can't tolerate that.

We can't stand for that.

And at the end of the day, I
don't think Bob Mueller will,
and Congress shouldn't either.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Congressman
Adam Schiff of California, the
ranking Democrat on the House

Intelligence Committee,
thank you very much.

REP.

ADAM SCHIFF: Thank you, Judy.