Adam Schiff On Impeachment Of Trump: 'The Big Club Has Been Brought Out' | All In | MSNBC

Adam Schiff On Impeachment Of Trump: 'The Big Club Has Been Brought Out' | All In | MSNBC



Likes:3483|Dislikes:248
Views:265168|Rating:4.67|View Time:11:14Minutes|

Congressman Adam Schiff tells Chris Hayes ultimately the public is going to know about the President’s misconduct. Aired on 09/24/19.
» Subscribe to MSNBC:

MSNBC delivers breaking news, in-depth analysis of politics headlines, as well as commentary and informed perspectives. Find video clips and segments from The Rachel Maddow Show, Morning Joe, Meet the Press Daily, The Beat with Ari Melber, Deadline: White House with Nicolle Wallace, Hardball, All In, Last Word, 11th Hour, and more.

Connect with MSNBC Online
Visit msnbc.com:
Subscribe to MSNBC Newsletter:
Find MSNBC on Facebook:
Follow MSNBC on Twitter:
Follow MSNBC on Instagram:

Adam Schiff On Impeachment Of Trump: ‘The Big Club Has Been Brought Out’ | All In | MSNBC

THIS TIME YESTERDAY. WE HAVE WITNESSED OVER JUST 24 WE HAVE WITNESSED OVER JUST 24 HOURS A CLEAR PIVOT IN AMERICAN HOURS A CLEAR PIVOT IN AMERICAN HISTORY. HISTORY. THIS IS HAPPENING. THIS IS HAPPENING. THE MEMBER OF CONGRESS WHO THE MEMBER OF CONGRESS WHO REVEALED WHO CHAIRS ONE OF THE REVEALED WHO CHAIRS ONE OF THE COMMITTEES THAT WILL BE KEY COMMITTEES THAT WILL BE KEY CONGRESSMAN ADAM SCHIFF, CHAIR CONGRESSMAN ADAM SCHIFF, CHAIR OF THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE OF THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. COMMITTEE. LET ME START WITH THE MOST LET ME START WITH THE MOST RECENT NEWS REPORTING THAT RECENT NEWS REPORTING THAT SUGGESTS THAT THE WHITE HOUSE IS SUGGESTS THAT THE WHITE HOUSE IS GOING TO LIFT ITS BLOCK OF THIS GOING TO LIFT ITS BLOCK OF THIS WHISTLE-BLOWER AND NOT ACTUALLY WHISTLE-BLOWER AND NOT ACTUALLY ALLOW THE CONTEMPLATE WANT ALLOW THE CONTEMPLATE WANT ITSELF AND PERHAPS THE ITSELF AND PERHAPS THE WHISTLE-BLOWER TO TALK TO YOUR WHISTLE-BLOWER TO TALK TO YOUR COMMITTEE IN CONGRESS. COMMITTEE IN CONGRESS. IS THAT TRUE? IS THAT TRUE? >> WELL, WE DON’T KNOW YET. >> WELL, WE DON’T KNOW YET. THE THIS IS WHAT THEY’RE SAYING THE THIS IS WHAT THEY’RE SAYING PUBLICLY. PUBLICLY. WE DON’T KNOW ALSO WHETHER THERE WE DON’T KNOW ALSO WHETHER THERE ARE GOING TO BE LIMITATIONS THAT ARE GOING TO BE LIMITATIONS THAT THE WHITE HOUSE ATTEMPTS TO THE WHITE HOUSE ATTEMPTS TO PLACE ON THIS WHISTLE-BLOWER. PLACE ON THIS WHISTLE-BLOWER. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THE FULL COMPLAINT, THAT WE GET THE FULL COMPLAINT, THAT WE GET THE INSPECTOR GENERAL’S REPORT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL’S REPORT AND THAT WHISTLE-BLOWER IS AND THAT WHISTLE-BLOWER IS ALLOWED TO SHARE WITH CONGRESS ALLOWED TO SHARE WITH CONGRESS ANYTHING THAT WHISTLE-BLOWER ANYTHING THAT WHISTLE-BLOWER BELIEVES IS EVIDENCE OF BELIEVES IS EVIDENCE OF MISCONDUCT OR FAL FEASANCE MISCONDUCT OR FAL FEASANCE WITHIN THE CONTOURS OF THE WITHIN THE CONTOURS OF THE STATUTE. STATUTE. SO I TAKE NOTHING FOR GRANTED SO I TAKE NOTHING FOR GRANTED WITH THIS CROWD IN THE WHITE WITH THIS CROWD IN THE WHITE HOUSE, THE MERE FACT THAT THE HOUSE, THE MERE FACT THAT THE WHITE HOUSE WHICH MAY BE THE WHITE HOUSE WHICH MAY BE THE SUBJECT OF THE COMPLAINT, WE SUBJECT OF THE COMPLAINT, WE DON’T KNOW YET, HAS A ROLE IN DON’T KNOW YET, HAS A ROLE IN DECIDING AT ALL WHETHER AND HOW DECIDING AT ALL WHETHER AND HOW THIS WHISTLE-BLOWER COULD COME THIS WHISTLE-BLOWER COULD COME FORWARD IS IN ITSELF DISTURBING. FORWARD IS IN ITSELF DISTURBING. >> IT’S YOUR POSITION THAT THE >> IT’S YOUR POSITION THAT THE WHITE HOUSE SHOULD HAVE NOTHING WHITE HOUSE SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS AND THAT WILLIAM TO DO WITH THIS AND THAT WILLIAM BARR AND THE DEPARTMENT OF BARR AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND WE KNOW THE WHITE JUSTICE AND WE KNOW THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL AS IT’S BEING HOUSE COUNSEL AS IT’S BEING REPORTED IS ALL ACTIVE IN THIS. REPORTED IS ALL ACTIVE IN THIS. THAT IN AND OF ITSELF TO YOUR THAT IN AND OF ITSELF TO YOUR MIND IS INAPPROPRIATE AND MIND IS INAPPROPRIATE AND POSSIBLY NOT LAWFUL. POSSIBLY NOT LAWFUL. >> ABSOLUTELY. >> ABSOLUTELY. AND THE STATUTE PROVIDES THAT AND THE STATUTE PROVIDES THAT ONCE THE DIRECTOR GETS THE ONCE THE DIRECTOR GETS THE COMPLAINT THEY HAVE SEVEN DAYS COMPLAINT THEY HAVE SEVEN DAYS TO TURN IT OVER TO CONGRESS BUT TO TURN IT OVER TO CONGRESS BUT IT SHALL BE PROVIDED TO IT SHALL BE PROVIDED TO CONGRESS. CONGRESS. THAT DIDN’T HAPPEN. THAT DIDN’T HAPPEN. INDEED, WE DID WANT FIND OUT INDEED, WE DID WANT FIND OUT ABOUT THAT BECAUSE THE DIRECTOR ABOUT THAT BECAUSE THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE TOLD OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE TOLD US, HEY, I’M NOT FOLLOWING THE US, HEY, I’M NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW FOR WHATEVER REASON. LAW FOR WHATEVER REASON. WE ONLY FOUND OUT ABOUT IT WE ONLY FOUND OUT ABOUT IT BECAUSE THE INSPECTOR GENERAL BECAUSE THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CAME TO US AND SAID THE IN CAME TO US AND SAID THE IN INSPECTOR IS NOT FOLLOWING THE INSPECTOR IS NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW HERE. LAW HERE. THERE’S NO CLAUSE THAT ALLOWS THERE’S NO CLAUSE THAT ALLOWS THE WHITE HOUSE TO WEIGH IN, THE WHITE HOUSE TO WEIGH IN, THERE’S NO PROVISION THAT ALLOWS THERE’S NO PROVISION THAT ALLOWS THE DIRECTOR TO GO AND SEEK A THE DIRECTOR TO GO AND SEEK A LEGAL OPINION FROM LAWYERS THAT LEGAL OPINION FROM LAWYERS THAT ARE REPRESENTING THE PRESIDENT ARE REPRESENTING THE PRESIDENT TO WITH HOLD A COMPLAINT THAT TO WITH HOLD A COMPLAINT THAT MAY INVOLVE THE PRESIDENT. MAY INVOLVE THE PRESIDENT. SO THERE’S SO MUCH WRONG WITH SO THERE’S SO MUCH WRONG WITH HOW THIS HAS BEEN HANDLED. HOW THIS HAS BEEN HANDLED. BUT WE’RE DETERMINED WE’RE GOING BUT WE’RE DETERMINED WE’RE GOING TO GET THIS. TO GET THIS. WE’RE GOING TO HAVE THE WE’RE GOING TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR FROM THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR FROM THE WHISTLE-BLOWER. WHISTLE-BLOWER. WE’RE GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE’RE GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT WHISTLE-BLOWER IS PROTECTED. WHISTLE-BLOWER IS PROTECTED. AND I WANTED TO SAY WHAT’S AT AND I WANTED TO SAY WHAT’S AT STAKE HERE IF INDEED THIS STAKE HERE IF INDEED THIS COMPLAINT DOES INVOLVE THE COMPLAINT DOES INVOLVE THE PRESIDENT’S INTERACTIONS WITH PRESIDENT’S INTERACTIONS WITH UKRAINE. UKRAINE. IT’S IMPORTANT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND IT’S IMPORTANT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THE HISTORY HERE WHICH IS WE THE HISTORY HERE WHICH IS WE PERSUADED UKRAINE TO GIVE UP ITS PERSUADED UKRAINE TO GIVE UP ITS NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND SAID WE WILL NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND SAID WE WILL ASSURE YOUR TERRITORIAL ASSURE YOUR TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY IF YOU DO. INTEGRITY IF YOU DO. WELL, THEY DID GIVE UP THOSE WELL, THEY DID GIVE UP THOSE WEAPONS THAT THEY INHERITED FROM WEAPONS THAT THEY INHERITED FROM THE SOVIETS, BUT THE SOVIETS, THE SOVIETS, BUT THE SOVIETS, THE RUSSIANS WOULD LATER INVADE THE RUSSIANS WOULD LATER INVADE THEIR COUNTRY AND ON A THEIR COUNTRY AND ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS CONGRESS BIPARTISAN BASIS CONGRESS APPROVED MILITARY SUPPORT TO APPROVED MILITARY SUPPORT TO HELP YOU CRANE DEFEND ITSELF HELP YOU CRANE DEFEND ITSELF AGAINST RUSSIA, AND GUESS WHAT? AGAINST RUSSIA, AND GUESS WHAT? THE PRESIDENT HELD THAT UP JUST THE PRESIDENT HELD THAT UP JUST DAYS BEFORE HE WOULD LEAN ON THE DAYS BEFORE HE WOULD LEAN ON THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE TO ASSIST PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE TO ASSIST HIS POLITICAL CAMPAIGN BY HIS POLITICAL CAMPAIGN BY MANUFACTURING DIRT ON HIS MANUFACTURING DIRT ON HIS OPPONENT. OPPONENT. IT’S HARD TO DESCRIBE A WORSE IT’S HARD TO DESCRIBE A WORSE ABUSE OF OFFICE, A WORSE ABUSE OF OFFICE, A WORSE VIOLATION OF HIS OATH OF OFFICE VIOLATION OF HIS OATH OF OFFICE AND THOSE FACTS WHETHER THOSE AND THOSE FACTS WHETHER THOSE ARE IN THE COMPLAINT OR THERE’S ARE IN THE COMPLAINT OR THERE’S MORE IN THE COMPLAINT AND WHAT MORE IN THE COMPLAINT AND WHAT THE PRESIDENT HAS ALREADY THE PRESIDENT HAS ALREADY ADMITTED IS A FLAGRANT ABUSE OF ADMITTED IS A FLAGRANT ABUSE OF HIS OATH OF OFFICE. HIS OATH OF OFFICE. >> YOU SAID IT’S BAD ENOUGH >> YOU SAID IT’S BAD ENOUGH TRUMP SOUGHT HELP FROM A FOREIGN TRUMP SOUGHT HELP FROM A FOREIGN POWER IN THE LAST ELECTION, AND POWER IN THE LAST ELECTION, AND WORST STILL HE OBSTRUCTED THE WORST STILL HE OBSTRUCTED THE INVESTIGATION AND NOW I FULLY INVESTIGATION AND NOW I FULLY SUPPORT THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. SUPPORT THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. IS IT THESE SET OF FACTS THAT IS IT THESE SET OF FACTS THAT TIPPED YOU OVER TO SETTING TIPPED YOU OVER TO SETTING IMPEACHMENT? IMPEACHMENT? >> IT IS. >> IT IS. AND CHRIS, I’VE BEEN RELUCTANT AND CHRIS, I’VE BEEN RELUCTANT TO GO DOWN THIS PATH. TO GO DOWN THIS PATH. IT’S AN EXTRAORDINARY REMEDY AND IT’S AN EXTRAORDINARY REMEDY AND ONE THAT THE FOUNDERS I THINK ONE THAT THE FOUNDERS I THINK INTENDED AS A LAST RESORT SINCE INTENDED AS A LAST RESORT SINCE WE HAVE PERIODIC ELECTIONS. WE HAVE PERIODIC ELECTIONS. BUT THE FACT WE’D HAVE A BUT THE FACT WE’D HAVE A PRESIDENT BY HIS OWN ADMISSION PRESIDENT BY HIS OWN ADMISSION AND AFTER HAVING SOUGHT FOREIGN AND AFTER HAVING SOUGHT FOREIGN HELP IN THE LAST ELECTION NOW HELP IN THE LAST ELECTION NOW USING THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE TO USING THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE TO ONCE AGAIN TRY AND GET FOREIGN ONCE AGAIN TRY AND GET FOREIGN HELP BY GETTING UKRAINE TO HELP BY GETTING UKRAINE TO MANUFACTURE DIRT ON HIS MANUFACTURE DIRT ON HIS OPPONENT, I THINK THAT COMPELS OPPONENT, I THINK THAT COMPELS US TO TRAVEL DOWN THE ROAD US TO TRAVEL DOWN THE ROAD TOWARDS IMPEACHMENT. TOWARDS IMPEACHMENT. SO I FULLY SUPPORT THE SPEAKER’S SO I FULLY SUPPORT THE SPEAKER’S DECISION. DECISION. >> I WANT TO ASK A FOLLOW UP >> I WANT TO ASK A FOLLOW UP ABOUT WHAT THAT PROCESS LOOKS ABOUT WHAT THAT PROCESS LOOKS LIKE IN JUST ONE MOMENT. LIKE IN JUST ONE MOMENT. I WANT TO CIRCLE BACK TO THE I WANT TO CIRCLE BACK TO THE WHISTLE-BLOWER AT ISSUE HERE. WHISTLE-BLOWER AT ISSUE HERE. YOU SAID THIS PUBLICLY THAT YOU SAID THIS PUBLICLY THAT YOU’RE IN CONTACT WITH THE YOU’RE IN CONTACT WITH THE WHISTLE-BLOWER’S ATTORNEY. WHISTLE-BLOWER’S ATTORNEY. HOW CONFIDENT ARE YOU THAT HOW CONFIDENT ARE YOU THAT YOU’LL BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO THE YOU’LL BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO THE WHISTLE-BLOWER AND HEAR THAT WHISTLE-BLOWER AND HEAR THAT COMPLAINT IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS? COMPLAINT IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS? >> YOU KNOW, IT’S HARD TO SAY. >> YOU KNOW, IT’S HARD TO SAY. I THINK THAT THE HEARING WITH I THINK THAT THE HEARING WITH THE DIRECTOR IS HAVING THE THE DIRECTOR IS HAVING THE EFFECT THAT I HAD HOPED THAT IT EFFECT THAT I HAD HOPED THAT IT WOULD, AND THAT IS FORCING THE WOULD, AND THAT IS FORCING THE ADMINISTRATION’S HAND. ADMINISTRATION’S HAND. I TOLD THE DIRECTOR THAT I’M I TOLD THE DIRECTOR THAT I’M GOING TO CALL ON HIM NOT IN GOING TO CALL ON HIM NOT IN CLOSED SESSION BUT TO ALL THE CLOSED SESSION BUT TO ALL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO EXPLAIN WHY AMERICAN PEOPLE TO EXPLAIN WHY HE’S THE FIRST DIRECTOR TO WITH HE’S THE FIRST DIRECTOR TO WITH HOLD A COMPLAINT IN VIOLATION OF HOLD A COMPLAINT IN VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE. THE STATUTE. I DON’T THINK THAT’S SOMETHING I DON’T THINK THAT’S SOMETHING THE DIRECTOR WANTS TO HAVE TO DO THE DIRECTOR WANTS TO HAVE TO DO WHERE AND SO I IMAGINE HE’S WHERE AND SO I IMAGINE HE’S PRESSURING THE ADMINISTRATION TO PRESSURING THE ADMINISTRATION TO GIVE HIM THE AUTHORITY TO GIVE HIM THE AUTHORITY TO RELEASE THIS COMPLAINT. RELEASE THIS COMPLAINT. BUT THE LONG AND SHORT OF IT IS BUT THE LONG AND SHORT OF IT IS WE’RE GOING TO ASSIST THE WE’RE GOING TO ASSIST THE WHISTLE-BLOWER BE PROTECTED AND WHISTLE-BLOWER BE PROTECTED AND SEE THE PURE AND UNADULTERATED SEE THE PURE AND UNADULTERATED COMPLAINT. COMPLAINT. WE HAVE ALL TOO MUCH EXPERIENCE, WE HAVE ALL TOO MUCH EXPERIENCE, CHRIS, OF THE ADMINISTRATION CHRIS, OF THE ADMINISTRATION THROUGH THEIR WILLING THROUGH THEIR WILLING PARTICIPANTS LIKE BILL BARR PARTICIPANTS LIKE BILL BARR MISREPRESENTING OFFICIAL MISREPRESENTING OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS. DOCUMENTS. THE WHITE HOUSE SHOULDN’T EVEN THE WHITE HOUSE SHOULDN’T EVEN HAVE THIS COMPLAINT. HAVE THIS COMPLAINT. THE PRESIDENT SAYS EVERYBODY HAS THE PRESIDENT SAYS EVERYBODY HAS SEEN IT. SEEN IT. THAT IN ITSELF IS A HUGE THAT IN ITSELF IS A HUGE PROBLEM, BUT WE’RE NOT GOING TO PROBLEM, BUT WE’RE NOT GOING TO RELY ON THE ADMINISTRATION OR RELY ON THE ADMINISTRATION OR ITS MINIONS LEADING THE JUSTICE ITS MINIONS LEADING THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO TELL US ABOUT DEPARTMENT TO TELL US ABOUT ANYTHING THAT’S IN IT. ANYTHING THAT’S IN IT. >> WERE YOU AT ALL SPRIEDSED BY >> WERE YOU AT ALL SPRIEDSED BY THE PRESIDENT MOVING TOWARDS THE PRESIDENT MOVING TOWARDS RELEASING THE FULL TRANSCRIPT? RELEASING THE FULL TRANSCRIPT? DO YOU TRUST THE WHITE HOUSE DO YOU TRUST THE WHITE HOUSE ENOUGH TO TAKE THAT TRANSCRIPT ENOUGH TO TAKE THAT TRANSCRIPT AND BELIEVE THAT THAT IS AN AND BELIEVE THAT THAT IS AN ACTUAL REPRESENTATION OF WHAT ACTUAL REPRESENTATION OF WHAT TRANSPIRED? TRANSPIRED? >> NO, I THINK SADLY IT’S THE >> NO, I THINK SADLY IT’S THE CASE YOU DESCRIBED THAT WE CASE YOU DESCRIBED THAT WE CANNOT TRUST THE ADMINISTRATION CANNOT TRUST THE ADMINISTRATION WITH RESPECT TO ANYTHING THAT IT WITH RESPECT TO ANYTHING THAT IT PRODUCES. PRODUCES. AND SO THERE ARE A COUPLE OF AND SO THERE ARE A COUPLE OF ISSUES HERE. ISSUES HERE. THERE’S THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THERE’S THE ISSUE OF WHETHER WHATEVER TRANSCRIPT THEY PROVIDE WHATEVER TRANSCRIPT THEY PROVIDE IS THE ONLY TRANSCRIPT OF THIS IS THE ONLY TRANSCRIPT OF THIS CONVERSATION OR WHETHER THERE CONVERSATION OR WHETHER THERE ARE OTHER READ OUTS OF THAT ARE OTHER READ OUTS OF THAT CONVERSATION AND WHETHER THEY CONVERSATION AND WHETHER THEY CHERRY PICKED AND PICKED THE CHERRY PICKED AND PICKED THE BEST READ OUT OF THAT BEST READ OUT OF THAT CONVERSATION, BUT THERE ARE ALSO CONVERSATION, BUT THERE ARE ALSO ISSUES ABOUT WHETHER THIS IS ISSUES ABOUT WHETHER THIS IS JUST ONE PIECE, FOR EXAMPLE, OF JUST ONE PIECE, FOR EXAMPLE, OF WHAT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER MAY BE WHAT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER MAY BE COMPLAINING OF. COMPLAINING OF. AFTER ALL, THIS ISN’T THE AFTER ALL, THIS ISN’T THE PRESIDENT’S ONLY INTERACTION PRESIDENT’S ONLY INTERACTION WITH UKRAINE. WITH UKRAINE. HIS INTERACTIONS ARE ALSO GOING HIS INTERACTIONS ARE ALSO GOING THROUGH RUDY GIULIANI’S PERSONAL THROUGH RUDY GIULIANI’S PERSONAL LAWYER, AND IF THE PRESIDENT IS LAWYER, AND IF THE PRESIDENT IS URGING UKRAINE TO MEET WITH URGING UKRAINE TO MEET WITH GIULIANI TO GIVE IN TO GIULIANI TO GIVE IN TO GIULIANI’S DEMANDS AND GIULIANI’S DEMANDS AND ESSENTIALLY HE’S ALSO SPEAKING ESSENTIALLY HE’S ALSO SPEAKING FOR RUDY GIULIANI. FOR RUDY GIULIANI. SO THERE’S A LOT MORE AT STAKE SO THERE’S A LOT MORE AT STAKE HERE THAN SIMPLY WHAT WILL BE HERE THAN SIMPLY WHAT WILL BE REFLECTED IN THE TRANSCRIPT. REFLECTED IN THE TRANSCRIPT. >> AS TO THE PROCESS THAT IS >> AS TO THE PROCESS THAT IS LAID OUT THERE’S SOME DEBATE LAID OUT THERE’S SOME DEBATE TODAY OR REPORTING BACK AND TODAY OR REPORTING BACK AND FORTH ABOUT WHAT THE PROCESS FORTH ABOUT WHAT THE PROCESS FORWARD WOULD BE, SOME REPORTING FORWARD WOULD BE, SOME REPORTING INDICATED THERE ARE DISCUSSIONS INDICATED THERE ARE DISCUSSIONS OF A SELECT COMMITTEE. OF A SELECT COMMITTEE. I GUESS THE CLOSEST HISTORIC I GUESS THE CLOSEST HISTORIC RESPECT WOULD BE WATERGATE. RESPECT WOULD BE WATERGATE. THAT IS NOT WHAT’S HAPPENING. THAT IS NOT WHAT’S HAPPENING. THE CHAIRS TRADITIONALLY THE CHAIRS TRADITIONALLY JUDICIAL AND OVERSIGHT, YOURS JUDICIAL AND OVERSIGHT, YOURS AND OTHERS ARE GOING TO PURSUE AND OTHERS ARE GOING TO PURSUE THE INQUIRIES UNDER THE RUBRIC THE INQUIRIES UNDER THE RUBRIC OF A FORMAL IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. OF A FORMAL IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN AND WHAT IS WHAT DOES THAT MEAN AND WHAT IS A TIME LINE? A TIME LINE? >> I THINK WHAT THIS MEANS UNDER >> I THINK WHAT THIS MEANS UNDER THE MOST URGENT OF ALLEGATIONS THE MOST URGENT OF ALLEGATIONS THAT IS THAT THE PRESIDENT THAT IS THAT THE PRESIDENT ESSENTIALLY TRIED TO COERCE A ESSENTIALLY TRIED TO COERCE A FOREIGN LEADER TO TRY TO HELP FOREIGN LEADER TO TRY TO HELP HIS PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN AND HIS PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN AND WITHHOLDING MILITARY SUPPORT AT WITHHOLDING MILITARY SUPPORT AT THE SAME TIME, THAT THE THE SAME TIME, THAT THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE WILL INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE WILL CONTINUE LEADING THAT CONTINUE LEADING THAT INVESTIGATION OF THOSE — OF INVESTIGATION OF THOSE — OF THAT CONSTELLATION OF ISSUES. THAT CONSTELLATION OF ISSUES. IF THAT RESULTS IN SUFFICIENT IF THAT RESULTS IN SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT WE THINK AN EVIDENCE THAT WE THINK AN ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT SHOULD BE ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT SHOULD BE BROUGHT, THAT THAT WOULD BE BROUGHT, THAT THAT WOULD BE PRESENTED TO THE JUDICIARY PRESENTED TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE FOR THEM TO VOTE ON AN COMMITTEE FOR THEM TO VOTE ON AN ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT AND ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT AND SIMILARLY IF OTHER COMMITTEES SIMILARLY IF OTHER COMMITTEES REACHED THAT POINT WITH WHAT REACHED THAT POINT WITH WHAT THEY’RE INVESTIGATING, OVERSIGHT THEY’RE INVESTIGATING, OVERSIGHT AND THE WORK THEY’RE DOING ON AND THE WORK THEY’RE DOING ON THE EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE, THE THE EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE, THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND THE WORK JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND THE WORK ITS DOING ON OBSTRUCTION OF ITS DOING ON OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE THAT ULTIMATELY WE’LL BE JUSTICE THAT ULTIMATELY WE’LL BE RECOMMENDING TO OUR LEADERSHIP RECOMMENDING TO OUR LEADERSHIP AND DISCUSSING WITH OUR CAUCUS AND DISCUSSING WITH OUR CAUCUS WHETHER THAT MEANS WE NEED TO WHETHER THAT MEANS WE NEED TO BRING UP ARTICLES AND WHAT THEY BRING UP ARTICLES AND WHAT THEY WOULD LOOK LIKE. WOULD LOOK LIKE. BUT WE HAVEN’T GOTTEN INTO I BUT WE HAVEN’T GOTTEN INTO I THINK THE SPECIFICS OF THAT THINK THE SPECIFICS OF THAT BECAUSE, FRANKLY, THAT’S PUTTING BECAUSE, FRANKLY, THAT’S PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE. THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE. RIGHT NOW WE NEED TO MAKE SURE RIGHT NOW WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THE FACTS AND IN THAT WE GET THE FACTS AND IN PARTICULAR WE GET THE FACTS PARTICULAR WE GET THE FACTS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT’S EGREGIOUS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT’S EGREGIOUS CONDUCT VISA VI UKRAINE. CONDUCT VISA VI UKRAINE. >> WHAT DO YOU — HOW DO YOU >> WHAT DO YOU — HOW DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE WHITE HOUSE’S UNDERSTAND THE WHITE HOUSE’S ACTIONS IN THE LAST 24 HOURS IN ACTIONS IN THE LAST 24 HOURS IN WHICH IT SEEMS TO BE DENIAL THEN WHICH IT SEEMS TO BE DENIAL THEN A KIND OF ALMOST OPEN ADMISSION A KIND OF ALMOST OPEN ADMISSION TO SOME OF THE MAIN CONTOURS OF TO SOME OF THE MAIN CONTOURS OF THE SUBSTANCE OF WHAT’S BEEN THE SUBSTANCE OF WHAT’S BEEN REPORTED ABOUT THIS TO SOME REPORTED ABOUT THIS TO SOME CAPITULATION. CAPITULATION. THERE ARE LOTS OF PEOPLE SORT OF THERE ARE LOTS OF PEOPLE SORT OF LOOKING AT THIS OR LOOKING AT LOOKING AT THIS OR LOOKING AT MITCH McCONNELL REFUSING TO MITCH McCONNELL REFUSING TO OBJECT TO A UNANIMOUS CONCEPT OBJECT TO A UNANIMOUS CONCEPT AND SAYING IS THIS FOR REAL OR AND SAYING IS THIS FOR REAL OR IS THERE SOME STRATEGY BEING IS THERE SOME STRATEGY BEING PLAYED OUT HERE THAT I’M PLAYED OUT HERE THAT I’M MISSING? MISSING? >> CHRIS, I THINK IT’S A COUPLE >> CHRIS, I THINK IT’S A COUPLE OF THINGS. OF THINGS. FIRST, I THINK THE FIRST, I THINK THE ADMINISTRATION REALIZES THIS IS ADMINISTRATION REALIZES THIS IS GOING TO COME OUT. GOING TO COME OUT. ULTIMATELY THE PUBLIC IS GOING ULTIMATELY THE PUBLIC IS GOING TO KNOW ABOUT THE PRESIDENT’S TO KNOW ABOUT THE PRESIDENT’S MISCONDUCT, AND THEY WANT TO TRY MISCONDUCT, AND THEY WANT TO TRY TO GET AHEAD OF IT. TO GET AHEAD OF IT. AND THEY ALSO WANT TO TRY TO AND THEY ALSO WANT TO TRY TO SHAPE IT IN THE SAME WAY BILL SHAPE IT IN THE SAME WAY BILL BARR MISLED THE COUNTRY ABOUT BARR MISLED THE COUNTRY ABOUT WHAT WAS INVOLVED. WHAT WAS INVOLVED. SO YOU CAN ALREADY SEE THE SO YOU CAN ALREADY SEE THE PRESIDENT TRYING TO SUGGEST TO PRESIDENT TRYING TO SUGGEST TO THE COUNTRY THAT, HEY, IF I THE COUNTRY THAT, HEY, IF I DIDN’T SPECIFICALLY ASK FOR QUID DIDN’T SPECIFICALLY ASK FOR QUID PRO QUO, THEN THERE’S NO PROBLEM PRO QUO, THEN THERE’S NO PROBLEM HERE. HERE. YOU DON’T NEED AN EXPLICIT QUID YOU DON’T NEED AN EXPLICIT QUID PRO QUO. PRO QUO. YOU DON’T NEED AN IMPLICIT QUID YOU DON’T NEED AN IMPLICIT QUID PRO QUO. PRO QUO. UKRAINE UNDERSTANDS HOW IT IS UKRAINE UNDERSTANDS HOW IT IS ENTIRELY DEPENDENT ON THE UNITED ENTIRELY DEPENDENT ON THE UNITED STATES, HOW IT’S ENTIRELY STATES, HOW IT’S ENTIRELY DEPENDENT ON THE PREZ PRESIDENT DEPENDENT ON THE PREZ PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR OF THE UNITED STATES FOR MILITARY SUPPORT, FINANCIAL MILITARY SUPPORT, FINANCIAL SUPPORT, FOR SUPPORT AMONG THE SUPPORT, FOR SUPPORT AMONG THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY. INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY. AND WHEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE AND WHEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TELLS THAT COUNTRY UNITED STATES TELLS THAT COUNTRY THIS IS WHAT I WANT YOU TO DO THIS IS WHAT I WANT YOU TO DO FOR ME MUCH LIKE WHEN JAMES FOR ME MUCH LIKE WHEN JAMES COMEY SAID WHEN THE PRESIDENT COMEY SAID WHEN THE PRESIDENT SAID I DON’T WANT YOU TO MAKE SAID I DON’T WANT YOU TO MAKE THIS FLYNN MATTER GO AWAY, THAT THIS FLYNN MATTER GO AWAY, THAT COUNTRY UNDERSTANDS NOT AS A COUNTRY UNDERSTANDS NOT AS A REQUEST BUT AS IN THIS WILL BE REQUEST BUT AS IN THIS WILL BE DONE OR THERE ARE REPERCUSSION. DONE OR THERE ARE REPERCUSSION. HE DOESN’T HAVE TO MAKE IT HE DOESN’T HAVE TO MAKE IT EXPLICIT. EXPLICIT. IT’S ENOUGH HE WITHHELD THIS IT’S ENOUGH HE WITHHELD THIS MILITARY SUPPORT EVEN AS HE’S MILITARY SUPPORT EVEN AS HE’S BROWBEATING THIS PRESIDENT AND BROWBEATING THIS PRESIDENT AND THEIR PERSONAL LAWYER IS THEIR PERSONAL LAWYER IS BROWBEATING FOR HELPING THEIR BROWBEATING FOR HELPING THEIR POLITICAL CAMPAIGN. POLITICAL CAMPAIGN. PART OF IT, TOO, CHRIS, IS THIS PART OF IT, TOO, CHRIS, IS THIS IS THE PATTERN WE SEE OVER AND IS THE PATTERN WE SEE OVER AND OVER. OVER. YOU ASK FOR DOCUMENTS YOU SHOULD YOU ASK FOR DOCUMENTS YOU SHOULD GET, THEY REFUSE. GET, THEY REFUSE. YOU SUBPOENA, YOU GET SOMETHING. YOU SUBPOENA, YOU GET SOMETHING. YOU TALK ABOUT BRINGING YOU TALK ABOUT BRINGING CONTEMPT, YOU BRING A LITTLE CONTEMPT, YOU BRING A LITTLE MORE. MORE. NOW I THINK THE BIG CLUB HAS NOW I THINK THE BIG CLUB HAS BEEN BROUGHT OUT — BEEN BROUGHT OUT — >> INTERESTING. >> INTERESTING. >> AND I THINK IT’S FORCING THEM >> AND I THINK IT’S FORCING THEM TO AGREE TO PROVIDE THE TO AGREE TO PROVIDE THE TRANSCRIPT AND THAT TRANSCRIPT AND THAT WHISTLE-BLOWER IS THE CLUB FOR WHISTLE-BLOWER IS THE CLUB FOR IMPEACHMENT. IMPEACHMENT. I THINK BUT FOR THAT BEING I THINK BUT FOR THAT BEING BROUGHT OUT THE WHITE HOUSE BROUGHT OUT THE WHITE HOUSE WOULD NOT BE RELINQUISHING THAT WOULD NOT BE RELINQUISHING THAT INFORMATION. INFORMATION. >> ALL OF THAT VERY ILLUMINATING >> ALL OF THAT VERY ILLUMINATING AND VERY INTERESTING TO HEAR

42 thoughts on “Adam Schiff On Impeachment Of Trump: 'The Big Club Has Been Brought Out' | All In | MSNBC

  1. So good to hear a U.S politician that’s level headed , articulate , forth right and with a level of intellect that puts the Orange ummm Peach hating orangutan to shame .. but there again the sociopathic Orange foetus has no shame to speak of…

  2. Slippery Schiff and his band of delusional Democrats got Trump re-elected today. If you think Trump's
    phone call to the leader of the Ukraine is an impeachable offense, you are as dumb as a sack of hammers.
    Stick a fork in Biden-he is toast.

  3. 2 years of so much nonsense. Now it is time for the "The Great Reveal" all hidden and untruths about to come out. Too much calling wrong right and concealing, lying now the dark is about to all come to light. Everything and everyone help conceal with lies and dishonesty The Great Revealer about to uncover for the world to see.

  4. There’s no spinning this, trumplodytes, it’s over – go back to your family and friends, maybe they will forgive this as some sort of temporary mental breakdown if you agree to never discuss politics again.

  5. "Oh gee, he just couldn't take the pressure and jumped out the window head first." If Putin's involved, assume every "suicide" is murder.

  6. I'm doubtful that anything will come of this because the GOP still stands behind him. I'm hopeful that he'll be forced out, but not getting my hopes up too high.

  7. Biden (son) has committed the crime, but Trump is getting framed for asking questions on corruption. This is ironic. Famous line from a Dem: Impeach that mf. We all know know the objective of Schiff with his one track mind. It looks like his only mission on in life is to get Trump impeached.

  8. IT TAKES 67 VOTES TO CONVICT IN THE SENATE. THE REPUBLICANS RUN THE SENATE. DEMOCRATS DO NOT HAVE 67 VOTES
    TRUMP WINS. END OF STORY.

  9. Poor Trump, he's down to Dowdy and Rudy! Where's Moscow Mitch and Leningrad Lindsey. Is Hannity and Carlson talking more Obama, Hillary and Bill personal editorials and what -abouts. LOL

  10. But what about Biden? huh? huh? Cover up is on. Fake news. We know better now. Thanks to Trump. Most transparent Prez eva! Witch Hunt. What about Clinton too? Where was Obama really born? What about….other stuff? MAGA MAGA

  11. This guy is a liar. Last two years he said he had proof of Russian collusion. Where is the proof? You morons have no clue that you are building a Trump base.

  12. What have Democrats done for America since Trump won the office?..Can anyone name something..All I've seen are one investigation after the next on Trump..And they keep losing..

  13. Just wonder what Nancy going to do now after hear conversation phone call from president Trump :)) lost my vote for Dem I so tire of them .

  14. For almost 3 years i waited
    For this crooked man to disclosed
    the " EVIDENCE " he had against
    Mr.Trump so far not a f……g thing
    Señor Schiff you have no credibility lies lies and more lies
    Shame on you.
    By the way you dems are not goint
    to regain the power of this great country i can Guarantee it.
    Mark my words.

  15. Rep. Schiff, I admire you and thank you for your service. I would strongly suggest to all Democrats re: impeachment inquiry: GO HARD OR GO HOME.

  16. I cant stop laughing at all you puppets…..
    Trump will never be impeached…..and we will easily reelect trump in 2020
    your brain damage is going to get much worse than it is right now…..
    Biden and son will probably go to jail…..Trump out played the democrats
    and Biden will soon be out as a candidate….
    I just cant stop laughing……….OMG it is so funny…..sleazy Joey got
    scheit on by Trump………
    Buh Bye Joe………America is all through with you…..just like Hillary…….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *