Rep. Adam Schiff talks with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow about the news that the Trump-Russia "Steele Dossier" was paid for by DNC interests, saying that finding out who paid for the document has no impact on whether or not it is true.
SCHIFF: We've known for some time, at least it has been publicly reported, that the dossier --the hiring of Christopher Steele-- was originally on behalf of one of the Republican candidates, and later on behalf of the Democratic candidate. This was the first confirmation of half of that. But it doesn't really shed light where we need light shed -- and that is: How much of what Mr. Steele found can be corroborated, how much of it is accurate.
We've been working hard to answer that question, and that is really what the American people need to know. Indeed some of the dossier has been corroborated.
What I find most interesting is that Christopher Steele, no matter who was paying for his services, may have discovered before our own intelligence agencies that the Russians were going to interfere in our election on behalf of Donald Trump.
We have a lot of work to do on behalf of some of the claims in the dossier, but it doesn't add much value to learn who paid for it necessarily and I view this as the effort to discredit [primary author Christopher Steele] which really doesn't advance the investigation...
Here the Republicans are less interested in what did Russia do and how did they do it and how do we protect ourselves? But rather, let's shift the focus on to any kind of government misbehavior, and maybe if we can suggest that the whole investigation goes back to this dossier and this dossier was opposition research, maybe we can discredit the whole investigation and maybe we can get the country to ignore what Russia, in fact, did.
You know, the plain fact is, sometimes what is uncovered in opposition research turns out to be true. And here if what Christopher Steele found, whether it was work for a Republican candidate and a Democratic candidate later, proved to be true, proved to be of concern to the FBI and to the country, then we need to know it and we can't ignore it merely because it came to the surface during a political campaign.
So the most important thing is, is it true? How much of it is true and how much outside of the dossier have we learned about the Russian involvement? And indeed, we keep on learning more and more.