Rep. Adam Schiff told ABC's "This Week" on Sunday morning that the obstruction of fair claims described in the Mueller report against President Trump is "far worse than anything that Richard Nixon did."
"So yes, I would say in all respects that this is more significant than Watergate," said House Intelligence Chairman. Schiff added that "burglary by the Russians in the democratic institutions" is "far more significant than the plumbers breaking into the democratic headquarters."
REP. ADAM SCHIFF: Kellyanne Conway and the US President called this false news, disputing that these facts were even facts.
MARTHA RADDATZ, ABC NEWS: But Congressman ̵1; Congressman …
SCHIFF: We now know from Bob Mueller They were actually.
RADDATZ: You – you went further than saying ample evidence, you once described to me on this program that the Trump administration's actions on the Russian probe are cited by a size and scope probably beyond Watergate. What do you say now?
SCHIFF: Well, it seems clear to me from the Mueller report that it is absolutely right. The obstruction of justice in this case is far worse than anything that Richard Nixon did. The – burglary of the Russians from the democratic institutions, a foreign opponent far more significant than the plumbers who break into the democratic headquarters. So yes, I would say in all respects that this is more important than Watergate. And the fact that a candidate for president and now the president of the United States would not only rise and resist Russian interference in our elections, but would like it goes far beyond what Nixon did.
The fact that the president of the United States would take Putin's side over his own intelligence agencies goes far beyond what Richard Nixon did. So yes, I think it's far more serious than Watergate.
RADDATZ: On the obstruction of justice, based on the information in the report, do you think the president prevented justice?
SCHIFF: I think he prevented justice and did it in many ways. And I think the Mueller report points out how the elements of obstruction are met in several cases, several courses in the president's behavior. What Bob Mueller said – and this is clearly in direct conflict with what Bill Barr represented in the country – is that he felt bound by the opinion of the Bar of Law that he could not file a president. Now Kelly's Conway points to it as proof of innocence, but it's not. Bob Mueller made it clear that he felt he could not indirectly the president. The most he could do was that the evidence did not liberate the president.
And I think the reason he did it because he could not only indirectly the president, but I also think he felt he could not say that the president should be accused because it would actually be the same. It would throw the same stigma over the president that the president would be powerless to remove. So I think Bob Mueller made the non-traditional judgment. He came so close to saying that evidence of obstruction was a sign of a crime he could within the Ministry of Justice's provisions. And that, I think, the point he was trying to come across that he kept the evidence of when the president was out of work and that he also proved evidence that Congress could understand and assume its own responsibility.