Adam Schiff: I’m Concerned ‘Multiple Witnesses’ Committed Perjury

Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union,” House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) said he was concerned “multiple witnesses” committed perjury when they testified to his committee.

Partial transcript as follows:

TAPPER: You just took control of the House Intelligence Committee, meanwhile, the grand jury and special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation has been extended for up to another six months. I know that you aren’t directly working with Mueller’s investigation, but what do you make of that?

SCHIFF: He’s clearly not done. There’s more work for the grand jury. Now whether that’s a full six months work or some portion less of that, clearly there are other potential charges he must be considering. No purpose for a grand jury, I think, otherwise. We are trying to deconflict with the special counsel. Over the last two years, frankly, our committee was working to conflict itself with the special counsel to make the special counsel’s work more difficult. We hope as one of our first acts to make the transcripts of our witnesses fully available to the special counsel for any purpose, including the bringing of perjury charges, if necessary, against any of the witnesses. But also to see the evidence that they contain and help flesh out the picture for the special counsel. We also really immediately went to work in reaching out to private institutions, to lay the foundation to get records as soon as our committee is constituted.

TAPPER: Is there anybody in specific you have in mind when talking about somebody who may have committed perjury? Are you talking about Donald Trump Jr.? Are you talking about Michael Cohen? Are you talking about Roger Stone?

SCHIFF: You know, I don’t want to go into enumerating particularly who I have concerns about but certainly have concerns about multiple witnesses. I think Bob Mueller, by virtue of the fact he’s been able to conduct this investigation using tools committee, meaning compulsion, is in a better position to determine who was telling the truth, who wasn’t and who he can make a case against in terms of perjury. There’s no reason to protect these witnesses. There’s every reason to validate Congress’ interest in not having people come before it and lie. And I think people felt they had some kind of immunity with the GOP majority at the time because they would often intervene to tell witnesses, ‘You don’t have to answer that question. You don’t have to say anything you don’t want or come in, even if you don’t want to. We’re not going to compel you.’ And that’s no way to run an investigation.

Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN