WHERE DO THEY DRAW THE LINE? AND TO WHAT EXTENT ARE THEY
ELING
ELING WILLIN TO DEFEND THE PRESIDENT
AT ALL COSTS VERSUS DEFENDING
THEMSELVES?
THEMSELVES? >> SO WHEN THE PRESIDENT WAS
RAILING AGAINST THE PRESIDENT
AGAIN AND AGAIN CALLING THEM THE
ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE, HE MADE ONE
EXCEPTION AT THAT JOINT NEWS
CONFERENCE WITH THE PRESIDENT OF
FINLAND WHO SAID THERE WAS A
GOOD "NEW YORK TIMES" STORY PUT
OUT FOR ME TODAY, LET’S GET INTO
THAT.
THAT. THE CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE INTEL
COMMITTEE REPORTEDLY LEARNED
ABOUT THE UKRAINE
WHISTLEBLOWER’S COMPLAINT
WHISTLEBLOWER’S COMPLAINT AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP DAYS
BEFORE IT WAS OFFICIALLY FILED.
ACCORDING TO THE "NEW YORK
TIMES," CITING A SPOKESMAN FOR
ADAM SCHIFF ALONG WITH CURRENT
AND FORMER U.S. OFFICIALS, THE
CIA OFFICER, THE WHISTLEBLOWER,
APPROACHED A HOUSE INTEL
COMMITTEE AIDE WITH HIS CONCERNS
ABOUT THE PRESIDENT ONLY AFTER
FIRST HAVING A COLLEAGUE RELAY
THEM TO THE CIA’S TOP LAWYER.
THE TIMES SAYS THE OFFICER
APPROACHED THE AIDE AFTER
BECOMING CONCERNS ABOUT HOW
THEIR INITIAL ATTEMPT FOR
REVEALING THE ALLEGATIONS
THROUGH THE CIA WAS UNNOLDING
ADDING THAT IN BOTH CASES THE
ORIGINAL ACCUSATION WAS VAGUE.
THEY GO ON TO WRITE THAT THE
STAFF MEMBER FOLLOWING THE
COMMITTEE PROCEDURES SUGGESTED
THE OFFICER FIND A LAWYER TO
ADVISE AND MEET WITH AN
INSPECTOR GENERAL WITH WHOM HE
COULD FILE AN OFFICIAL
WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT.
WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT. THE AIDE SHARED SOME OF WHAT WAS
CONVEYED TO CHAIRMAN SCHIFF BUT
NOT THE WHISTLEBLOWER’S
IDENTITY.
IDENTITY. IN A STATEMENT FOR NBC NEWS HE
SAID IN PORT THE WHISTLEBLOWER
CONTACTED THE COMMITTEE FOR
GUIDANCE AND HOW TO REPORT
POSSIBLE WRONGDOING WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION OF THE INTELLIGENCE
COMMUNITY IN THE IS A REGULAR
OCCURRENCE GIVEN THE UNIQUE
OVERSIGHT ROLE AND
RESPONSIBILITIES.
RESPONSIBILITIES. AT NO POINT DID THE COMMITTEE
REVIEW OR RECEIVE THE COMPLAINT
IN ADVANCE.
IN ADVANCE. TOP MEMBERS OF THE SENATE INTEL
COMMITTEE, INCLUDING REPUBLICAN
CHAIRMAN RICHARD BURR, SUGGESTED
THE HOUSE COMMITTEE FOLLOWED
PROTOCOL STAYING WAS STANDARD
PROCEDURE TO REFER
WHISTLEBLOWERS TO THE RELEVANT
INSPECTORS GENERAL.
INSPECTORS GENERAL. HERE’S PRESIDENT TRUMP’S
REACTION YESTERDAY TO THAT "NEW
YORK TIMES" REPORT.
>> YOUR RESPONSE TO THE FACT
THAT THAT HAPPENED AND THAT
SCHIFF MAY HAVE LEARNED SOME OF
WHAT THE WHISTLEBLOWER KNEW
PRIOR TO THE COMPLAINT?
>> I THINK IT’S A SCANDAL THAT
HE KNEW BEFORE.
I’D GO A STEP FURTHER, I THINK
HE PROBABLY HELPED WRITE IT,
OKAY, THAT’S WHAT THE WORD IS.
AND I THINK IT’S -- I GIVE A LOT
OF RESPECT "THE NEW YORK TIMES"
FOR PUTTING IT OUT.
JUST HAPPENED AS I’M WALKING UP
HERE THEY HANDED IT TO ME AND I
STOWED MIKE, I SAID, WHOA,
THAT’S SOMETHING.
THAT’S SOMETHING. THAT’S BIG STUFF.
THAT’S A BIG STORY.
HE KNEW LONG BEFORE AND HE
HELPED WRITE IT TOO.
IT’S A SCAM.
IT’S A SCAM.
JUST TO FINISH ON THIS, I
APPRECIATE IT, I LOVE THAT
SECOND QUESTION BY THE WAY,
SHOULD HAVE ASKED IT FIRST.
BUT LET ME JUST TELL YOU, THE
WHOLE THING IS A SCAM.
THE MUELLER DEAL WAS A SCAM.
THE RUSSIAN COLLUSION WAS A
SCAM.
SCAM. YOU CAN ASK PUTIN.
NOBODY’S BEEN ROUGHER ON RUSSIA
THAN DONALD TRUMP, OKAY.
>> WE SHOULD POINT OUT THE
REPORTER ASKING THE QUESTION TO
THE PRESIDENT MISREPRESENTED THE
TIMES REPORTING PUTTING FORTH
THE IDEA THAT CHAIRMAN SCHIFF
KNEW ABOUT THE SUBSTANCE OF THE
COMPLAINT IN ADVANCE WHICH
ALLOWED THE PRESIDENT TO SUGGEST
THAT HE HAD A HAND IN WRITING
IT.
IT. THE REPORTING IN SCHIFF’S
STATEMENT SAY THAT IS NOT THE
CASE.
CASE. LET’S BRING IN THE CORRESPONDENT
COVERING NATIONAL SECURITY AND
INTELLIGENCE, KEN DILANIAN.
YOU’VE BEEN ON THIS STORY ALL
NIGHT.
NIGHT. WALK US THROUGH WHAT EXACTLY
HAPPENED AND IF ADAM SCHIFF DID
ANYTHING WRONG.
ANYTHING WRONG. BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT CLEARLY IT
AND WE SAW ALL DAY YESTERDAY
AFTER THIS STORY BROKE HIS
SUPPORTERS CLAIMING THEY HAVE A
SMOKING GUN HERE THAT SOMEHOW
ADAM SCHIFF HELPED THE
WHISTLEBLOWER CRAFT HIS
COMPLAINT TO GET AT THE
PRESIDENT.
PRESIDENT. >> WELL, WILLIE, THE MOST
IMPORTANT THING FOR OUR VIEWERS
TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THIS IS WHAT
HAPPENED HERE IS EXACTLY HOW THE
SYSTEM IS SUPPOSED TO WORK AND
THOUSAND ROUTINELY
THOUSAND ROUTINELY HOW IT ROUTINELY WORKS WITH THE
HOUSE AND SENATE COMMUNITIES.
AN OFFICER WILL COME TO THE
COMMITTEES, PARTICULARLY IN THIS
CASE THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE
COMMITTEE WITH A COMPLAINT OF
WHAT SORT THAT THEY WANT TO
FWROING CONGRESS’S ATTENTION.
AND THE STAFF WILL ALWAYS GIVE
THIMM THEM THE SAME ANSWER.
DON’T TELL US ANYTHING
CLASSIFIED, WE’RE ON AN
UNSECURED PHONE MOST LIKELY, GET
A LAWYER AND GO TO THE INSPECTOR
GENERAL, FILE YOUR COMPLAINT AND
IT WILL GET TO US EVENTUALLY IF
IT’S AN URGENT CONCERN.
AND MOST OF THOSE COMPLAINTS
NEVER END UP GETTING TO THEM
BECAUSE THEY’RE OFTEN NOT VERY
SERIOUS.
SERIOUS. THIS ONE WAS QUITE SERIOUS.
BUT THERE’S NO EVIDENCE THAT
SCHIFF’S OFFICE OR SCHIFF’S
AIDES HELPED THIS WHISTLEBLOWER
WRITE THIS COMPLAINT.
AND WE DON’T EVEN KNOW EXACTLY
WHAT SCHIFF KNEW ABOUT IT.
I MEAN, HE KNEW IT WAS SERIOUS,
THAT’S CLEAR.
THAT’S CLEAR. BUT IT’S ALSO IMPORTANT FOR
PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS
WASN’T THE FIRST TIME THAT THIS
WHISTLEBLOWER HAD CONVEYED HIS
COMPLAINT.
COMPLAINT. HE FIRST THROUGH A COLLEAGUE
BROUGHT HIS COMPLAINT TO THE CIA
SPECTER GENERAL
SPECTER GENERAL INSPECTOR GENERAL.
INSPECTOR GENERAL. HE BECOME CONVINCED, ACCORDING
TO THE NEW YORK TIMES, THAT THE
COMPLAINT WAS NOT BEING HANDLED
PROPERLY BECAUSE HE KNEW THAT
THE CIA INSPECTOR GENERAL HAD
ALERTED THE WHITE HOUSE
COUNSEL’S OFFICE, THE VERY
SUBJECT OF THE COMPLAINT ABOUT
THE CONTENTS OF IT AND HAD
BROUGHT IN OFFICIALS AT THE
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND THE
WHISTLEBLOWER WAS WORRIED THAT
IT WAS GOING TO BE ESSENTIALLY
COVERED UP.
COVERED UP. SO HE GOES TO THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE.
COMMITTEE. THE HOUSE COMMITTEE SAYS FILE A
COMPLAINT WITH THE INSPECTOR
GENERAL.
GENERAL. HE DOES THAT.
THE NEXT THING SCHIFF LEARNS
ABOUT IT IS THAT THE COMPLAINT
IS BEING WITHHELD.
CONGRESS GETS NOTIFIED BY THE
INSPECTOR GENERAL WE HAVE THIS
URGENT CONCERN COMPLAINT BUT THE
WHITE HOUSE AND THE JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT IS NOT LETTING US
PASS THAT ON TO YOU.
AND THAT’S WHEN ADAM SCHIFF
ISSUES A NEWS RELEASE AND SAYS
HE’S ISSUING A SUBPOENA FOR THIS
COMPLAINT IF THE WAS FRIDAY,
SEPTEMBER 13th.
SEPTEMBER 13th. AND I REMEMBER CHECKING AROUND
IN MY SOURCES, OTHER SOURCES
AMONG -- IN CONGRESS.
NO ONE ELSE SEEMED TO KNOW
WHETHER THIS WAS SIGNIFICANT OR
NOT.
NOT. AND PEOPLE WERE SPECULATING THAT
SCHIFF WAS OUT ON A LIMB HERE.
BUT IN FACT NOW WE KNOW DID HE
KNOW, HAD HE A HEADS-UP.
BUT THAT’S A GOOD THING BECAUSE
HE WAS ABLE TO TAKE THE KIND OF
ACTION THAT MADE SURE THAT THE
WHITE HOUSE COULD NOT COVER THIS
UP, WHICH APPEARS TO BE WHAT
THEY WERE TRYING TO DO.
>> WELL, IT’S WORTH UNDERLINING,
TOO, THAT RICHARD BURR, THE
CHAIR OF THE SENATE INTEL
COMMITTEE, A REPUBLICAN, RICHARD
BURR, NOT EXACTLY A MEMBER OF
THE SQUAD, CAME OUT AND SAID
THIS IS STANDARD OPERATING
PROCEDURE THE WAY THIS WENT
DOWN.
DOWN. SAM STEIN, I WANT TO PLAY A CLIP
FROM THIS VERY SHOW SEPTEMBER
17th, CHAIRMAN SCHIFF WAS ON THE
SHOW AND YOU ASKED HIM A
QUESTION THAT HAS RAISED SOME
EYEBROWS IN THE LAST 24 HOURS.
>> CONGRESSMAN, A COUPLE
QUESTIONS HERE ON THIS
WHISTLEBLOWER FRONT.
WHISTLEBLOWER FRONT. FIRST OFF, HAVE YOU HEARD FROM
THE WHISTLEBLOWER?
THE WHISTLEBLOWER? ARE YOU -- DO YOU WANT TO HEAR
FROM THE WHISTLEBLOWER?
WHAT PROTECTIONS COULD YOU
PROVIDE TO THE WHISTLEBLOWER?
AND YOU SAID THAT THE DNI IS
REFUSING TO TURN OVER THIS STUFF
CITING A REQUEST FROM A HIGHER
AUTHORITY.
AUTHORITY. THE INSINUATION LEFT FOR ME AND
OTHERS WAS THAT THE PRESIDENT
HIMSELF HAD INTERVENED.
IS THAT THE INSINUATION YOU
SOUGHT TO PROVIDE AND, IF SO,
WHAT BASE ZOIS YOU HAVEIS DO YOU
MAKING THAT INSINUATION?
>> I’M SURE THE WHISTLEBLOWER
HAS BEEN ADVISED AS THE LAW
REQUIRES BY THE INSPECTOR
GENERAL OR THE DIRECTOR OF
NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE JUST AS TO
HOW HE IS TO COMMUNICATE WITH
CONGRESS.
CONGRESS. AND SO THE RISK TO THE
WHISTLEBLOWER IS RETALIATION.
WILL THE WHISTLEBLOWER BE
PROTECTED UNDER THE STATUTE IF
THE OFFICES THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO
COME TO HIS ASSISTANCE AND
PROVIDE THE MECHANISM ARE
UNWILLING DO SO.
BUT WE WOULD LOVE TO TALK
DIRECTLY WITH THE WHISTLEBLOWER.
>> SAM, YOU SPOKE TO CHAIRMAN
SCHIFF LAST NIGHT.
I WANT TO READ THE QUOTE AGAIN.
QUOTE, WE HAVE NOT SPOKEN
DIRECTLY WITH THE WHISTLEBLOWER.
HOW DOES HE EXPLAIN THAT WHEN
CLEARLY AT THAT POINT THE
WHISTLEBLOWER HAD COME TO
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF’S COMMITTEE?
>> SO WE TALKED TO A COUPLE
MINUTES LAST NIGHT.
HE EXPRESSED REGRET FOR NOT
HAVING BEEN MORE CLEAR IN HIS
WORDING.
WORDING. >> WHAT DID HE SAY?
>> HE SAID AT THE TIME WHEN HE
WAS SAYING THAT OBVIOUSLY WE NOW
KNOW THAT THE WHISTLEBLOWER HAD
APPROACHED HIS STAFF, BUT THERE
WASN’T 100% CERTAINTY THAT THE
WHISTLEBLOWER WHO WHEN
APPROACHED HIS STAFF WAS THE
SAME ONE BEHIND THE ACTUAL
COMPLAINT.
COMPLAINT. THERE WAS A SUSPICION IT WAS BUT
IT WASN’T 100% CERTAINTY.
HE ALSO WAS EXPLAINING THAT HE
WAS TRYING TO COMPEL
WHISTLEBLOWER TO TESTIFY BEFORE
THE COMMITTEE WHEN HE WAS SAYING
THAT, BUT, AGAIN, HE EXPRESSED
REGRET FOR WHAT HE SAID ON THE
INITIAL INTERVIEW WITH "MORNING
JOE" AND SAID HE SHOULD HAVE
BEEN MUCH MORE CLEAR ABOUT IT.
I WILL SAY THIS PUTS HIM IN
SOME -- IN SOME TROUBLE.
HE CLEARLY WASN’T BEING
FORTHRIGHT IN THAT INTERVIEW
WITH US A COUPLE WEEKS AGO AND
HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN.
THAT BEING SAID, IF YOU’RE
REALLY BOTHERED BY THE -- WHAT
WORDS SCHIFF SAID A COUPLE WEEKS
AGO HE AND NOT THE COMPLAINT OR
THE FACT THAT, FOR INSTANCE,
MIKE POMPEO CLAIMED HE WASN’T ON
THE CALL AND IT TURNED OUT HE
WAS, THEN YOU’RE BEING DISHONEST
ABOUT THIS ENTIRE PROCESS.
IT’S THE SUBSTANCE OF THE
COMPLAINT THAT’S THE STORY.
THE PROCESS BY WHICH THE
COMPLAINT BECAME PUBLIC IS A
STORY, AND YOU CAN CONSIDER THAT
IN ITS OWN RIGHT, BUT IN TERMS
OF GRAVITY OF THE SITUATION, I
DON’T THINK THE PROCESS ACTUALLY
STANDS UP ALL THAT WELL TO THE
COMPLAINT ITSELF.
COMPLAINT ITSELF. >> THAT COMMITTEE OFFICIAL BY
THE WAY, DID CONCEDE, QUOTE, THE
CHAIRMAN COULD HAVE BEEN MORE
CLEAR, AS SAM SAID, BUT SAID HE
WAS REFERRING TO THE COMMITTEE
OFFICIALLY INTERVIEWING THE
WHISTLEBLOWER AND HIMSELF
PERSONALLY.
PERSONALLY. SO, MIKE, BUT, AGAIN, THE STORY
THAT WAS SPUN YESTERDAY BY THE
WHITE HOUSE AND OTHERS WAS THAT
ADAM SCHIFF HELPED THE
WHISTLEBLOWER WRITE THE
COMPLAINT.
COMPLAINT. THAT’S PATENTLY FALSE?
>> AND IT’S NO SURPRISE THAT
THEY WOULD GO THERE WITH THAT.
BUT KEN DILANIAN, IN THE COURSE
OF YOUR REPORTING, DID YOU BUMP
INTO ANY CONCERN ABOUT WHAT
HAPPENED AT THE CIA AND THE CIA
COUNSEL’S OFFICE WITH THE
WHISTLEBLOWER APPROACHING THE
COUNSEL AND THE COUNSEL’S
REACTION WAS TO TAKE THE
COMPLAINT INITIALLY TO THE WHITE
HOUSE?
HOUSE? >> YES, MIKE.
A LOT OF CONCERN ABOUT HOW IT
WAS HANDLED.
WAS HANDLED. NOW, WHAT EXPERTS IN THIS WHOLE
PROCESS HAVE SAID IS THAT THE
GENERAL COUNSEL OF AN AGENCY HAS
AN OBLIGATION TO SORT OF DO
THAT.
THAT. THEY’RE NOT THE INSPECTOR
GENERAL.
GENERAL. IN FACT, THAT’S WHY PEOPLE ARE
ADVISED TO TAKE COMPLAINTS TO
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL WHO’S
INDEPENDENT, NOT THE GENERAL
COUNSEL WHO SORT OF HAS TO
INFORM EVERYONE.
INFORM EVERYONE. BECAUSE THIS WAS A SERIOUS
COMPLAINT ABOUT THE CONDUCT OF
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES.
STATES. AND IT WAS ONLY NATURAL THAT YOU
WOULD GO -- START CIRCULATING IT
AROUND THE GOVERNMENT TO
INVESTIGATE IT.
INVESTIGATE IT. IT ALSO WENT TO THE JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT.
DEPARTMENT. THAT SAID, THERE’S A LOT OF
CONCERN ABOUT A GENERAL COUNSEL,
TRUMP APPOINTEE OF THE CIA,
CONCERN ABOUT WHERE HER
LOYALTIES LIE.
LOYALTIES LIE. CIA OFFICIALS INSIST SHE’S A
STRAIGHT SHOOTER AND PROTECTING
THE AGENCY.
THE AGENCY. BUT I HAVE HEARD FROM SOURCES
CONCERNED THAT SHE IS POLITICAL
AND THAT SHE’S PROTECTING DONALD
TRUMP’S INTERESTS.
TRUMP’S INTERESTS. SO THAT IS -- WILL BE A SUBJECT
OF INQUIRY, I THINK, AS THIS
PROCESS MOVES FORWARD.
>> KEN, DO WE KNOW WHETHER SHE
KNEW THE WHISTLEBLOWER’S
IDENTITY?
IDENTITY? >> THAT IS NOT 100% CLEAR, BUT
BECAUSE THE WHISTLEBLOWER WENT
TO HER THROUGH A COLLEAGUE.
BUT ONCE IT BECAME CLEAR,
CERTAIN IDENTIFYING FACTS ABOUT
THIS WHISTLEBLOWER, WHAT HIS
EXPERTISE WAS, WHERE HE HAD
WORKED, THERE ARE NOT A LARGE
NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT FIT THAT
DESCRIPTION.
DESCRIPTION. AND SO IT’S FAIRLY EASY, I
THINK, FOR WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS
AT THIS POINT TO DETERMINE AT
LEAST A SHORT LIST OF SUSPECTS,