MSNBC "All in with Chris Hayes" - Transcript: Interview with Sen. Chris Murphy

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

HAYES:  After seven years in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London originally hiding out from rape sexual assault charges in Sweden, Julian Assange was kicked out by the Ecuadorian government today and swiftly apprehended by the British police for extradition to the U.S. where he has been charged with computer hacking conspiracy in an unsealed indictment.
 
The indictment which was unsealed today was filed over a year ago eight years after the alleged crime.  The Obama administration declined to charge Assange.  They made the decision in the Department of Justice.  It would be too dangerous to press freedoms to do so.
 
Even now the DOJ did refrain from bringing the more controversial espionage charges, but the indictments still raises all sorts of questions.  Why was he kicked out now?  Why was he indicted a year ago eight years after the alleged crime?  We know that WikiLeaks features prominently in the special council indictments against Russian hackers and against Trump associate Roger Stone.  Is it possible there are more charges to come on that front?
 
Here to help me dive into those questions, Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut.  Senator, I was happy that you were able to talk tonight about this because I think it`s a complicated case because people have very strong and often negative feelings about Julian Assange.  But it also strikes me that the Obama -- the Department of Justice decision was an important one and I wonder what your reaction is.
 
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D), CONNECTICUT:  Well, Julian Assange is some strange amalgamation of a journalist and a political actor and I don`t think any of us really understand where that line begins and ends.  No one should be prosecuted for disclosing secrets that about a government that they were given if they had no role in procuring those secrets illegally.
 
But Assange is being charged with a crime of actually coordinating with one of the actors who stole classified information and that clearly appears as if it crosses a line.  He also seems to have been an active political participant in the Russian efforts to try to manipulate our elections.  It didn`t seem like a coincidence that he was dropping information into the middle of the 2016 election at times that were especially advantageous for the aims of the Russian government.
 
Now, I`m not privy to any of the information or the signal intelligence that the Justice Department has, but this has been a tough case from the beginning because he treads this line that most journalists don`t tread.
 
HAYES:  I think here`s the concern that I -- that I have on this case which is that they decided that this Trump administration with its views about the press and this DOJ with -- under Jeff Sessions and his views in the press chose to make this indictment a year ago eight years after the infraction when the Obama Department decided that however they could charge him would perhaps create precedents that are dangerous to the press and as a member of the press myself as a believer in the First Amendment.  And you know, do we trust the Trump administration in the delicacy necessary here?
 
MURPHY:  No, we don`t trust the Trump administration but let`s also be clear that Trump has shown a lot of affection for Julian Assange very openly.  But listen, I don`t know what evidence they have that underlies this claim, but what they`re claiming is that he was an active participant along with Chelsea Manning in trying to procure this classified information.
 
And if that is the case, if he was working to try to steal classified information, and that clearly seems like it crosses a line.  And I`m you know, frankly glad that they didn`t level charges that would have been in a much clearer gray zone.  So let`s see what the underlying evidence is.  But if he didn`t help steal classified information, if you as a participant in that effort, you know that that seems like that should be inside the criminal justice system.
 
HAYES:  I have you here and I want to ask you a question about the war powers resolution that you have been very instrumental on.  We have, I think, since the first time the War Powers Act in the wake of Richard Nixon, an actual resolution passed by both houses of congress, going to the president`s desk.  Is that correct, it`s never happened before?
 
MURPHY:  It never happened before, passed in the early 70s, there`s a provision that allows for congress to take a majority vote to direct the president, to pull the United States out of hostilities if it has not been authorized by congress.  And this is the first time that the House and the Senate have successfully passed this resolution to pull the United States in this case out of Yemen.  And it is sitting on the president`s desk.  Curiously, it`s been sitting on his desk for almost a week now, and he has yet to veto it.
 
HAYES:  Have they issued any statement from the White House about what the position of the government is -- the White House is?
 
MURPHY:  Well, the position of the administration prior to its passage was that they were going to veto it.  He has not done that yet.  Obviously, it would be curious for the president to sign a resolution demanding that he pull out of a war that he could do on his own. 
 
But, you know, again, you know what we are seeing is that, you know, they`re are starting, once again, to be movement on the ground inside the Middle East, inside Yemen, to try to get a tentative peace agreement and ceasefire made real. 
 
Every single time that congress acts, regardless of what the president does, it puts more pressure on the players in the region to come to the table and try to achieve a settlement.  And I`ve heard just in the last 24 to 48 hours that there`s been some movement between the Houthis and the Saudi-led coalition that maybe positive.
 
HAYES:  All right, Senator Chris Murphy, thank you very much as always.
 
MURPHY:  Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source