Loading summary
Transcript89 lines
- [00:00]
Senator Adam Schiff
Foreign.
- [00:07]
Harry Littman
Welcome to Talking Feds. One on one deep dive discussions with national figures about the most fascinating and consequential issues defining our culture and shaping our lives. I'm your host, Harry Littman.
- [00:23]
Event Moderator
Thank you everybody for coming Quite a crowd to our latest Talking San Diego event, especially on a holiday morning. Talk about a guest who needs no introduction. But I want to take a couple of the valuable minutes from this hour to explain why in my book, Adam Schiff is a preeminent public servant and in keeping with the holiday, an American hero. We cover the gamut of political and legal stories each week on Talking Feds. But first among them, the reason I got into it in the first place. The explanation for our title is the heartbreaking and repugnant corruption at the Department of Justice, where I served for most of my career. The senator shares that institutional background, and no one has been more focused and eloquent about defending it against the worst onslaught in DOJ history. His closing argument in the first impeachment trial and delivered without notes was just a tour de force of persuasion and marshaling of evidence the likes of which I've never seen. Certainly in the Senate. He warned us then that speaking of the president, he has done it before, he will do it again. Words that turn out to be tragically prescient. That's, of course, only a small part of the senator's public service, especially now as the represents the entire state. But from my corner of the world, nothing is more important and nobody is more valuable in the fight. Please join me in welcoming Senator Adam Schiff.
- [02:13]
Harry Littman
Thank you very much.
- [02:16]
Michael Waltman
Thank you.
- [02:19]
Senator Adam Schiff
Thank you all. Thank you so much.
- [02:27]
Event Moderator
Thank you. What a welcome. And it gives me occasion to say it's a short hour, so please, no interruptions until the end. I also wanted to thank people who submitted questions which we reviewed, all of them. You'll recognize some in the things that I asked the senator about. Hello. Okay, let's move immediately to the DOJ and Todd Blanche, whose confirmation hearings begin a week from Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, where you're a member. The day of his nomination, Senator, you put out a pretty scathing statement calling on the Senate to oppose him. What's so bad about Todd Blanch?
- [03:13]
Senator Adam Schiff
Well, I remember vividly meeting with Todd Blanche when he was nominated for the position he is currently in, not the acting position, but when he was nominated to be the number three in the Justice Department. And as Harry mentioned, I had spent almost six wonderful years in the US Attorney's office in Los Angeles. I cared deeply about the Department and having gone through, Trump won. I think I said something along these lines to Mr. Blanche. The hearing was coming up, I think, the following day. We know a lot of the same people. It's a small AUSA network around the country. I know a number of people that serve with you in the Southern District of New York. They have good things to say about you. I have no doubt you have the experience to do this job. My question is different, though. My question is, what will you do the first time you're asked to do something unethical, immoral, or potentially illegal? Do you have the gravitas? Do you have the stature, do you have the character to say no? And his answer was one I would then hear from a great many other people who came up for confirmations for judge or other things. His answer was, I don't think I will ever be put in that position. And I remember saying I lived through Trump. 1. It's not a question of whether. It's only a question of when. And my guess is very soon, as in maybe the first week or the first day or certainly the first month. It's just a question of when. And what you decide in that moment will be your legacy. And what I have seen since is a great many people who go to the Trump administration, either one or two, thinking they're going to be the exception. Either they're not going to be asked to do anything unethical, or they're going to be the one to say no. And it generally begins when they're asked to do something maybe smallish and unethical, and they do it, and then they're asked to do something larger and more unethical, and then they do it. And rationalizing all along the way that if they don't, they'll get fired and someone worse will replace them. But if they keep doing these unethical, unlawful things, how much worse could could the next person be? And now we have someone who doesn't resemble at all the Todd Blanch from the Southern District of New York. There have been so many compromises along the way that I think he has concluded as a great many have. I'm all in. I've made my bed with this guy. There is nothing left for me to do but be all in, to the point where he stands before the country at the podium, at the Justice Department and auditioning for the role as Attorney general, says that the president has not only a right but a duty to go after his political enemies and to use the Justice Department to do it. And I listened to that. And I thought, what happened to that guy? But this is a story that I've seen play over and over again with other people in other positions. And it all takes me back to something Harry and I have talked about before, something the historian Robert Carroll once said in an interview when he said that power doesn't corrupt as much as it reveals. It doesn't always reveal us for our best, but it says a lot about who we are. And my conclusion is that Todd Blanche really didn't change from when he was with the Southern District. We just didn't know who he was. We just didn't know what decision he would make when he was put in that position. And now we do.
- [07:00]
Event Moderator
Yes. So
- [07:04]
Senator Adam Schiff
I just hope my answers won't be that long.
- [07:06]
Event Moderator
No, no, no. And I just want to add that among the former prosecutor community, he's really held in special contempt, as opposed to, say, Pam Bondi, because we know he was schooled in the ethos of the Department of Justice. He knows just what he is doing. And as you say, he's not only doing it, but. But he has championed it. Let's move to the politics of it a little. A week from Wednesday in the Judiciary Committee, where you serve, there are a couple Republicans who have put a little bit of distance, at least in the slush fund. Then they went kind of crawling back. How do you see the politics and the prospects for him getting through? And if I can add to it, what sorts of arguments are you thinking about to present to the likes of Thom Tillis or John Corwin that might actually be persuasive about what they're really confronting, which is ratifying the most sort of breathtaking departure from DOJ norms in our history.
- [08:11]
Senator Adam Schiff
So what really seems to matter a great deal to Thom Tillis is January 6th. He is not a January 6th denier. Often when we have people appear before the committee and they start to hem and contort their testimony around January 6th because they know if they go too far, they have their nomination pulled from them, not by the senators, but by the president. He doesn't react favorably to that. Now, he still votes to confirm most of these people. But I imagine that for Tillis and others, they will try to get some commitment to him from him and more than just rhetorically, that the slush fund is not going to be resurrected. But here's the thing. We have seen him make other commitments, and of course, all kinds of nominees make commitments that they don't live up to. And I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Blanche agrees to do away with the slush fund per se. But the department, still using a different mechanism like the federal Tort Claims act, allows these insurrectionists to file claims under a pre existing law not meant for this purpose and abuses that law to pay them off anyway. And then we'll later say, well, I did away with the slush fund. We used a different fund to pay these people off. So I kept my word. That's what I would not be a bit surprised to see. So it really depends on are my Senate colleagues serious about making sure that the public fisk isn't used to reward people who beat and bear sprayed and gouged police officers on January 6? I would also hope that this other piece of this corrupt bargain that was signed by Todd Blanche and that is the get out of jail free on cheating on your taxes settlement, so called settlement. I would hope that they would make a condition of support for him. The vacation of that, the negation of that, the repeal of that. I am much less confident that they will. And so if I don't sound optimistic, it's because I'm not. I mean this is a crowd. After all, that confirmed RFK Jr. And Tulsi Gabbard and all the rest of these incompetents Cash Patel. I mean, it just takes your breath away. And while we're on the subject of doj, the idea that Patel is tasking dozens and dozens of FBI agents to pour over the ballot boxes from Fulton county tells you what a horrible misuse of FBI resources is going on. And those people are being diverted away from serious investigations, which is leaving us all less safe.
- [11:09]
Event Moderator
Yeah, that's a point that most people don't see. It's really the public that pays for that and the cost to public safety. Let's stick with that for a moment because we have a pretty indefatigable effort by the administration to to do anything it can to kind of position itself for fighting elections down the line, all based on the completely false supposition that there's fraud out there and people voting who shouldn't be any way at all that between now and the midterms, not if you happen to take the gavel, but that we and the Senate and Congress could should be trying to at least blunt those efforts.
- [11:52]
Senator Adam Schiff
Yes, and I had a very similar conversation with Leader Schumer a few months ago that I had with Speaker Pelosi back in 2020. On the subject of in 2020, it was about six months before the election. Maybe we should put together a small group to Try to anticipate everything that might go wrong in the 2020 election. What happens if the Electoral College is tied? What if a state sends more than one slate of electors? What if the vice president doesn't do his job? And we set up this group, myself and Jamie Raskin, Jonah Goose, Zoe Lofgren and the speaker, and we would meet with outside experts and we would plan. We came up with a horribly complex flowchart of about a thousand things that could go wrong, except the one that did. None of us expected a mass violent attack on the Capitol. I had a similar conversation with Leader Schumer. We have set up a task force in the Senate which I'm also a part of. And we've had to really open the aperture to all that might go wrong. And I was mentioning to one of the guests, Christine Forrester. Thanks, dear friend. One of the scenarios that I'm most concerned about, and that is we will have our election observers on election Day and some of you may be willing to participate in being an election observer. They will have theirs. It would be easy to seed the crowd with outside agitators meant to provoke brawling. You could do this in cities throughout the country to give the President a pretext, Reichstag firelike, to call in the Guard, invoke the Insurrection act, to supposedly put down civil unrest that would have been unthinkable a decade ago. But nothing is unthinkable anymore. And there are a whole set of scenarios far short of that that we also have to try to anticipate. But there are lots of things that people can do to help prepare. One of them is helping people vote early. Because if there is some kind of incident at a polling place, it's good to have all those votes already cast. So encouraging people to vote early, depending on what kind of voter disenfranchisement efforts they undergo around the country, which are ongoing right now, helping people confirm whether they're registered, helping them, if they've been purged from the voter rolls, make sure they get registered in time for the election. There's a lot that can be done in advance of the election. I kind of break it down into three time periods. Before the election, on election day, and after the election. And there's lots of good ways and good organizations to plug into where whatever your skill set is, you don't have to be a lawyer. You can really play an important role in helping protect our elections.
- [14:48]
Event Moderator
Hey, everyone.
- [14:49]
Harry Littman
Harry here.
- [14:50]
Event Moderator
As the weather heats up, I wanted
- [14:53]
Harry Littman
to give another shout out to Quint's Clothing. Their organic cotton crew neck. Their Traveler five pocket pants and their Pima cotton T shirts have been great parts of my wardrobe, and they're breathable enough to feel fantastic on mild or warm summer days. They look good, fit well, and are inexpensive to boot. And I'm looking forward to checking out their new European linen pants and shirts for even more summer comfort. Elevate your summer wardrobe. Go to quince.comtalkingfeds for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's quince.com talkingfeds for free shipping and 365 day returns.
- [15:47]
Event Moderator
Quince.com/talking feds Speaking of the consummation of the unthinkable, let's talk a little about the Supreme Court. It just wrapped its term two days ago. Let's take the birthright citizenship case, which everyone is making the headline you had said, I think completely accurately, that's never been up for debate. And I think the real headline might be that four members of the Court were ready actually to rewrite the 14th Amendment. A lot of the commentary now talks about Roberts having reasserted his role as chief. So let's zero in that you've called him incredibly disappointing, even tragic. Pretty solemn assessment of a chief Justice. Why and what you're thinking of the Roberts court.
- [16:43]
Senator Adam Schiff
Well, it's a little bit like you described the difference between Todd Blanche and Pam Bondi. I would similarly describe my disappointment and far more than disappointment in Roberts comparing him to say, Alito. Alito never really made any pretense of being anything other than a partisan hard right social agenda on the court for a cultural mission kind of a justice. But Roberts once pretended to be something different. I do think that in particular with the immunity decision that he attached his name to, he made the decision not unlike so many others, not unlike Robert Carroll once described. As I mentioned, he made the decision it was more important to him to be at the center of power on that court than to fulfill his constitutional duty and to do the right thing for the country. You cannot tell me he didn't understand the gravity of giving a felon who is president a get out of jail free card and immunity to commit whatever crimes they want in office and not be held accountable. You cannot convince me he did not understand the damage that would do, but he was willing to do it if he could hold the pen. And it wasn't just about his writing the opinion. It was also about being in the center of gravity among that right wing court rather than being with justices appointed by Democratic presidents. So he's made his bed. I have to tell you, my favorite moment, and there's really only been one of them with this.
- [18:27]
Event Moderator
Nominations are closed.
- [18:29]
Senator Adam Schiff
My favorite moment was during Trump's first State of the Union address, when you might remember, because it was caught on camera, him walking on the way out of the chamber past the justices, shaking Robert's hand and saying loud enough to be picked up on the microphone, thank you. We'll never forget it. And you could see Robert's face. He wanted to climb into a hole. He wanted to disappear, because here he was being exposed for the favor he did this president and the damage he did this country. So I think when this chapter of history is written, at the top of the list of enablers of this corrupt presidency will be the name John Roberts. The immunity he defined is so broad, it's hard to even conceptualize how a president could be held accountable. It is only purely personal conduct. But for a president who is president 24 hours a day, who does everything through the instrumentality of his office, it is hard to even describe what that would look like. So he has a blanket immunity, Truly. And I think this accounts for a large part of the reason why Trump 2 is so much worse than Trump 1. I mean, certainly there's a mental degradation, but setting that aside, he now believes, and not without reason, that he can rob, he can cheat, he can steal, he can lie, he can obstruct, and he will never be held criminally accountable. And as long as the Republicans are
- [19:59]
Harry Littman
so
- [20:02]
Senator Adam Schiff
devoted to him, afraid of him, he'll never be held accountable in any other way either. And I just can't imagine a more frontal assault on the checks and balances that we have than the one that carries the name of John Roberts, including
- [20:17]
Event Moderator
this term, where we've essentially written out of the Constitution or our government structure, the whole independent agency, kind of that. It's hard to appreciate because it seems kind of arcane, but it's so critical to everyday life, and now it's just subject to political caprice. Okay, reform, then. You and others have said if there's the opportunity, that's going to be high on the agenda. There's sort of two main proposals out there, and I think you've given tepid support to both of them. The stronger one is maybe we can do term limits. Maybe that will kind of take the whole sort of cage match feeling out of the confirmations. Truth be told, though, it wouldn't really help for what ails us now and the personnel of the court that remain there a generation. On the other hand, the one thing that would the appointment and expansion of the court feels a little bit in the wake of our history, the Roosevelt scheme, like a political pipe dream. What's your sense of what's both pragmatic and effective in reform of the Court? Should the Dems be in the position to propound it?
- [21:41]
Senator Adam Schiff
Well, first of all, I would say my support is not at all tepid for drastic reform of the Supreme Court. I do believe the most consequential reform, if we could bring it about, would be to put a term limit on the Supreme Court such that justices would serve, say, a period of 18 years or whatever the appropriate term would be, and then they would be rotated back onto a court of appeals or a district court. I think this would be constitutional because you would be the justices would still have life tenure on a court. There is no constitutional requirement that you have life tenure on a particular court. The court system wasn't even established at the time of the Constitution. Here's the rub though. The rub is it would be this Supreme Court that would adjudicate the constitutionality of a term limit, which is why expansion of the Court is necessary for any meaningful reform of the Court. In fact, the other of the three reforms beside expansion and term limits, is a truly enforceable code of ethics. The rub there is the enforceable part. The Supreme Court might not strike down Congress passing code of ethics, but if we ever tried to actually enforce it, or if a Justice Department ever tried to enforce it, do you have any doubt as to whether this majority would come to the defense of an Alito or a Thomas or anyone else and strike down Congress's ability to sanction a Justice for unethical conduct? So I think even an enforceable code of ethics would require a change in the court. And as I don't want my kids who are in their 20s, to have to live their entire lifetimes under a right wing, socially right wing court like this one, partisan court like this one, devoted to big wealth as this one is, we're going to need to expand the court. Now, I remember making this argument when I was on the House Judiciary Committee and it got up the ire of the Republicans, as you can imagine. For the reason you mentioned, which is Roosevelt tried to do that. You're trying to pack the court like Roosevelt tried to pack the court. To which my response was, you already packed the court. You already packed the court. There's more than one way to pack the court. You can pack it, as Roosevelt tried, by adding Justices, or you can pack it, as Trump did and McConnell did, by withholding justices. But you have packed and stacked the court, and the only question now is whether it gets unpacked and unstacked. And so I would not have entertained a remedy like this 10 years ago. But as I don't want a whole generation to have to suffer under this totally unrepresented representative body, I think we need to change the court. If you do that hand in hand with the term limit, then hopefully you get to a point where justices are rotating off the Supreme Court, such that the kind of gamesmanship we saw under McConnell and Trump before, where one justice is withheld under the argument, well, the election is only 10 months away, couldn't possibly put a justice on the court now, and then in the final weeks of a different president's tenure, they jam a justice down the country's throat. It would do away with that kind of gamesmanship, which resulted in two seats changing on the Supreme Court. So count me all in.
- [25:23]
Event Moderator
Okay. We have in the substack, a lot of people online use their special monikers, and one of them is still blaming Mitch. And the thing I always think about with him is standing up, essentially pronouncing at the second impeachment, Trump guilty, but saying the criminal law will take care of this, which is a note of mordant irony. I think I wanted to move a little bit into a couple policy questions that now concern you, especially as a senator. So the war in Iran, I think you've said that it's illegal, as I'm here to opine it was, but also a debacle which is pretty hard to contest. Many critics on both sides, very traditional conservative foreign policy hawks, have said that the impact on America's standing in the world, on our ability to be influential, on credibility and trust among a whole bunch of countries that are maybe up for grabs and are being importuned by China, say, is really taking a hit that just can't be reversed when Trump leaves office. Do you agree? And how would you sort of assess the ongoing damage to the country's national interest of this misadventure in Iran?
- [26:52]
Senator Adam Schiff
Well, before we completely leave the court, I just want to thank you for all of the analysis you've given the country on the court, on the law, on the Justice Department. It's just been an invaluable service. Harry. I'm sometimes introduced as a former United States attorney. I was not a U.S. attorney, I was just an assistant U.S. attorney. And I'm always careful to point out the difference because anyone that served in the department knows the difference. And I don't want to be accused of aggrandizing myself as a prosecutor. He was the real thing. And I just so admire what you've done to elucidate the law in a way that people can understand and appreciate and make it accessible to people. So I didn't want to leave the topic without saying thank you. In terms of the Iran war,
- [27:52]
Harry Littman
there
- [27:53]
Senator Adam Schiff
are a couple things I think people should know about the legality, constitutionality of the war, and then there's the wisdom or ill wisdom of the war. But first, on the constitutionality of it. The Founders did something quite unique at the time, and that is they did not give the war power to the President. They didn't give it to the Chief Executive. That was extraordinary at a time when it was always the king, the monarch who had the power to go to war, and the subjects just went with the ruler when they made that decision. And the Founders made the decision to give that power instead to Congress because they feared that a President might grow too fond of war. And so the power to declare war, to make war, belongs with the Congress as well as the power of the purse to fund a war. And there are limited circumstances in which a President can use military force in the absence of a Congressional declaration or authorization. If we're attacked, you wouldn't want a situation where the President can't respond because Congress is out of session. Or even if Congress is in session, it might take too long to prepare our further defense. So when we're attacked, the President can act for a period of time without a declaration or authorization. And if there's an imminent threat of attack, now that is a little more precarious because whether something is truly imminent is not easy to define. But nevertheless, there has to be an imminence. There was neither here. No attack on the US By Iran, no threat of attack, and the President just decided to take us to war. So from the very beginning, it was unconstitutional. It also became unlawful because in the wake of Vietnam, we passed the War Powers act, which in those circumstances where we're attacked or there's an imminent threat and the President uses force, the War Powers act requires them to come to Congress within 60 days to get our authorization, or failing to receive it, he must remove all US Troops from hostilities. We have long since passed that point. So it is both unconstitutional and unlawful. Now Congress has taken up resolutions which now have passed in both houses in part, declaring this war to be in violation of the War Powers Act. But in Reality that wasn't even necessary because the clock had run under the War Powers Act. That's the legality or illegality of this war. But this war is also so unwise and so harmful to the strategic interests of the country. Iran, before the war, probably theorized that in the event of war, it might have the power to shut down the Strait of Hormuz. It couldn't be certain whether it could withstand a massive military campaign by the United States and still be able to keep the strait closed. But it might have theorized it might be possible. Now, tragically, Iran knows that it can do this. Iran now knows that with a very limited military force, with very primitive and inexpensive drones, it can so threaten traffic in the strait that even if it were passable, it's not insurable anymore. And if you can't insure ships going through the strait, you can't really have ships going through the strait. They now have discovered they have a kind of nuclear bomb, and it's called closing the Strait. And now the administration is going further to even entertain the idea that Iran might be able to charge some tolls or fees for passage in the strait, which would be unthinkable. It also means that you invite other countries in other parts of the world, including China, to decide they can charge tolls now. They can close off the freedom of navigation. This is a huge strategic defeat for us already. However this ends, that is a huge strategic defeat. Iran understands, too, that it has all the leverage right now. So there's supposedly 60 days to reach a nuclear deal. They're not even talking really about a nuclear deal. And the nuclear deal they're talking about looks a lot like the JCPOA that Trump tore up. Except now Iran also has the ability to close the strait, something it didn't know it had during the jcpoa. So the administration is going to struggle just to get back to where we were before the war, during the jcpoa. It is a terrible outcome. And indeed, one of the other criticisms of the JCPOA was it didn't deal with Iran's sponsorship of terror. It didn't deal with its missile threat. Well, neither does what Donald Trump is talking about. So hard to see how this ends in anything but a strategic enormous setback. And you see now all of these countries sending people to the Ayatollah's funeral. He's also weirdly legitimized Iran. So it's an unmitigated disaster, and it's been costly to us. We've lost 13 service members. There are more at risk all the time. Americans have had to pay the price of this war at the pump and innumerable other ways. So hard to find anything positive yet that has come out of this war. And it is once again an illustration of how unwise it is to get into a war with Iran without thinking through the consequences, without having the public support. The reason you want to come to Congress, in addition to the constitutional reason and one of the reasons for this provision, the Constitution, is you want the buy in of the American people, not if things go well, which you can generally expect. You want the buy in of the American people when things don't go well, when things get difficult. And we see the wisdom of the Founder's Choice in its violation by this
- [34:15]
Event Moderator
president on the gas prices, I just want to know. Yesterday you were outside a gas station in L. A calling out oil companies for $90 billion in profits while Californians paid the highest gas prices in the country. I'll return that in a second. But as long as we're in Iran, let's go down the street, as it were, for just a minute. You've been very strong about Israel's right to defend itself. On the other hand, pretty critical of the Netanyahu government and the possibility for a two state solution which you support. Is it basically off the table so long as Netanyahu and Trump remain in power?
- [34:59]
Senator Adam Schiff
A two state solution? Yeah, I think certainly we're not going to see a two state solution or even movement in any direction other than away from a two state solution as long as Netanyahu is the prime minister. And I don't see anything much positive coming out of a Trump presidency in the region either. But one of the tragic, truly tragic successes of this horrendous terrorist attack on October 7th is how much Hamas killed the idea of a two state solution in Israel. There was support for a two state solution before October 7th in Israel. Now there is very little support for it in Israel, which is a terrible tragedy because I don't see any permanent peace in the region without there being a safe and secure state of Israel side by side with a safe and secure Palestinian state. I just don't see much of a future in the region without there being two states able to live side by side. And this Netanyahu government has now made that so difficult. And with the aggressive settlement policy of the administration, with the destruction of Palestinian homes, with the kind of Swiss cheese they're making out of the west bank, it is so difficult to be optimistic. And that is a heartbreak. One of the chief concerns, I have to be very candid, is I certainly hope there's a different government in Israel in the near future. My deep concern though is we get a different government in Israel and we don't see a different policy of the Israeli government. And that would be just devastating because then it's not just about Netanyahu anymore. So I hope there's a change in government, but even more significant, I hope there is a dramatic change in the policies of the Israeli government that make it possible again to move towards a two state solution. this moment, though, it is tragically difficult to see.
- [37:10]
Event Moderator
There's a particular irony. I was with the rabbi and many people in this room in Israel and in that very area that was attacked and really it was a stronghold of support for a two state solution. And it is my sense that it's really in many ways changed the support within the state. I want to move a little bit to domestic politics. So you noted this week that alongside the Democratic wins of very progressive candidates, especially in New York, there were also centrist wins and in Iowa and other places. But it seems to me that the perception right now is that the mojo, the excitement, the organization in the Democratic Party is with the progressive wing. Do you think that's a fair read? And if so, what does the more centrist wing need to do to sort of get it back?
- [38:14]
Senator Adam Schiff
I think it really is and this won't be at all surprising. So geography dependent. So in New York and Virginia, we had these two centrists elected as governor with commanding wins in those states. And there was at the time, you know, a lot of public commentary about the ascendancy of the center of the Democratic Party. Then you have Mamdani's win and the win of his candidates in New York City. And the commentary has very much moved to this being a very progressive moment. And we also saw elections in Colorado that resembled the elections in New York. I think it will continue to be very dependent on where you are. We had moderate candidates like Josh Turek win in Iowa. There is a very competitive race in Michigan between three Democrats. And the polling is very close there. We'll see who comes out on top there.
- [39:16]
Event Moderator
Utah.
- [39:18]
Senator Adam Schiff
Yeah. So I think, I don't know that you can say there's a definitive national direction. What I hope you can say is that the Democratic Party is a big tent that welcomes new energetic people to the party, that has room for everyone in the party. I don't want to become a small party that stays in the minority. I want to be a Big party. And I don't live in New York. My kids live in New York. I've watched Mamdani. He is a hugely talented politician. He is young and handsome, and that doesn't hurt. I'm working on both of those things.
- [40:02]
Event Moderator
AI, I think will be able to take care of it.
- [40:04]
Harry Littman
That's right.
- [40:05]
Senator Adam Schiff
Excellent. But you know what I gather from New York, and this may or may not be true in these other races, of the candidates he supported is it's not necessarily that everyone in those districts thinks that the ideas that are being proposed are viable, but it is a sense, and I think this was certainly true with Mamdani, that he gets what young people and a lot of not so young people are going through who love the city of New York but can't afford to live there and have watched mayor after mayor take office and nothing change except it get worse and harder. And to me, the takeaway from these races, from the presidential race that Donald Trump won, there are some common takeaways. As disparate as these candidates are, and that is the status quo is completely unacceptable to a broad swath of Americans. And I think it's unacceptable because for the first time in our history, millions of people look at the life their parents had and think it's better than what they have. They think they have to work harder than their parents did. They have less vacation than their parents did. They have less chance of owning a home than their parents did. They have less retirement security than their parents did. They have a worse health insurance plan than their parents did. Now, this isn't true for everyone. There are certainly a lot of people whose parents had it very difficult. But nonetheless, I think when there are millions who feel that way, that they're working harder than ever, that the problem is not that they're out of work, it's not the Great Recession or the Great Depression. The problem today is that people are working and they still can't get by. Then all too many are willing to entertain any demagogue who comes along, promising that they alone can fix it. So in the last presidential cycle, Biden was the candidate of the status quo, a deeply unpopular status quo. In New York, Andrew Cuomo was a perfect representation of a terribly flawed status quo. It is not only not enough to say you're against the status quo, it is not enough to say that you want to go back to the status quo ante. You want to go back to the way it was, that when Trump is gone, we're going to reinstate affordable tax care credits. We're going to put back in place some of the things that Trump has uprooted. No, that's not enough. We're going to have to have big, bold ideas that move the country forward in a non incremental way. The Republicans have demonstrated that if you have the courage of your convictions, you can move the country far and fast. They've moved it far and fast in a terrible direction. We can move it far and fast in a positive direction. But the status quo is a political killer for anyone who comes to be associated with it. And to me, that's the common denominator in these races.
- [43:08]
Event Moderator
Okay. Moving west, you seem to have a special ability to drive Trump crazy, as you put it. You live rent free in his head.
- [43:23]
Senator Adam Schiff
It's pretty scary in there, I have to say. All kinds of things, rolling around in
- [43:30]
Event Moderator
there, bumping in the night. But I think it's noteworthy. I think it's fair to say you're one of the two most prominent politicians in California and the other the governor also occupies. I don't know if you ever bump into him in the recesses, but he has called.
- [43:51]
Senator Adam Schiff
Gavin, is that you? Yeah, exactly. I know it's really dark in here, but is that you?
- [43:58]
Event Moderator
But he has, he's said that there is a war on California from the federal government, that the administration is going after the state itself. Wildfires, immigration, environmental standards, funding. True. And how does that shape your approach to the job? I know you've said sometimes you avoid putting your name on legislation that you've crafted because you think it could be counterproductive. If there is this war on California, how does it affect your week to week work as a senator?
- [44:37]
Senator Adam Schiff
Yeah, well, there is incredible hostility to the state from the president, obviously from the White House. We see it reflected in innumerable ways. They're canceling our wind projects, they're canceling our renewable energy projects, they're canceling our health care funding. They're refusing to provide disaster assistance to thousands and thousands of Californians who lost their homes in Los Angeles in these two terrible fires. It is not just California, though. There is kind of a. If there is a war going on, it's against all the blue states, certainly some more than others. And California has a particular place of ire for the president, maybe because he loses so handily here, but we've never seen this before. We saw some of it in Trump 1, but we've never seen it like this before. You know, I've been at this for quite a while now and you would always see Republicans of Presidents of both parties, rather, after they're elected, make an effort to win over people that they didn't win over in the election. So they would, you know, try to direct additional infrastructure, money or other things to places that they hope to curry favor. There's always been some degree of that. But we've never seen such punitive action, such petty, personal, vindictive action by a president, as we see now. We've never seen a president who truly only believes he represents the half of the country that voted for him. The rest he has nothing but enmity for. That is new. And I remember when I first got there, because I got there, sadly, just before he got there for the second term, talking to the Republicans about the fires in la, all of whom assured me, don't worry, notwithstanding what the President was saying, we're not going to make disaster assistance a partisan thing. But here we are now, it's a year and a half after those fires. We are still waiting. And the idea that these people, who are both Democrats and Republicans that lost everything, are getting punished because because of how the state voted in the last presidential election, it's just appalling. It's nothing I want to ever see by any Democratic administration or any future Republican administration. So this is happening. It has been happening. When I took office, I really had two priorities, and these were goals that I had set out during my campaign. They are still my two priorities, although the mix of time I have to spend on both is different than what I had hoped. I had obviously hoped for a Democratic presidency and all that we might get accomplished. But my first priority is to deliver for this state, and my second priority is to constrain this terrible president. And those things are in tension. I do like this about the Senate, which is you can still seek out people across the aisle, work with them and get things done, even in this horribly toxic environment. So to give you one example, somebody in the Trump administration under Dr. Oz decided it would be a good idea to measure the distance between rural hospitals. Now, why would you do that? You would do that because if Your hospital is 35 miles away from the next closest hospital or more, you're declared a critical access hospital. Because if your hospital closes, then. Because if your hospital meets that designation, you get this enhanced reimbursement rate under Medicare. Now, that's essential to keep these hospitals open because they don't have a lot of privately insured patients that can help subsidize the inadequate payments on Medicare and Medicaid. You lose that designation and you're out of business. So they remeasure these distances and they find that there are a handful of hospitals that are just under 35 miles, and they cut them off and the hospitals are going to close. I found out there was a Mississippi Republican who had the same problem in her state. And we both implored the administration and Dr. Oz to change this policy, and they refused. And we literally had to make a federal case out of it, introduce a bill, get the approval of the chairs and ranking members of all the various committees that had jurisdiction in the House and the Senate, find a moving vehicle to attach it to all. And we did. And we saved two out of three of these hospitals. The third, because they knew they were losing their status. The staff left the hospital because they had to find other jobs. Now they're closed and they have to reopen. And the problem is they now have to meet all the earthquake retrofit and everything else, those requirements that are going to cost tens of millions of dollars to reopen. And you can still do things like that, which I really like. You can still bring back money through the congressional appropriation process, even when the administration is killing the much bigger portion of resources that would otherwise come back to a state. So I'm still able to find ways to get things done, which I'm going to continue to use every stratagem I can to make sure I'm delivering.
- [50:15]
Event Moderator
And I just want to report that. You hear about this again and again. When said, these cloakroom conversations where Republicans say, oh, my God, I know he's a disaster, but I'm scared for this reason or that, and, you know, they essentially just give up. Let's move to this point of your new challenges. As a senator, you used to represent 740,000 or so. Now it's a mere 39 million. My sense is you're adjusting to it. Possibly. This part of what I wanted to ask you, taking a less central role in the national debate, as you kind of come to know the whole state, is that fair and just in general? What's the sea legs part of getting the job not just in the Senate, but this whole vast state, more than half of which are halfway north of San Francisco.
- [51:16]
Senator Adam Schiff
I'm trying to do both at the same time. That is, play an important role at the national level on a host of issues that are deeply important to me and deeply important to the state. And I'm also trying to get to know 40 million people, which is a challenge. One of the ways I have been doing it is I sought a position on the Agriculture Committee. We haven't had a senator from California on the ag committee in 35 years, not since Pete Wilson. And we're the number one agriculture producing state in the Union. You might imagine that in deep red parts of California and there are deep red parts of California that are rural agricultural and that are home for probably 8 to 10 million people. The fact that we never had a senator in 35 years on that committee didn't go over well, that our senators didn't care to be on that committee when it was so central to their livelihood. And I really enjoyed being on the committee. It's completely different than any responsibility I had when I represented LA and urban suburban Los Angeles. Meeting with farmers throughout the state. There's nothing more fun, by the way, than upsetting people's expectations, particularly when they only know you from fox. My favorite was being in Butte county in the far north, Deep, deep red California, meeting with a group of farmers and telling them, I'm on the Ag Committee. I asked for that assignment. I'm proud to be on that committee. I'm proud you feed my family and families all over the country and feed all over the world. But I have to admit, in my own old LA district, the only agriculture we had was of the illegal variety. So I have a lot to learn about ag. But here's what I'm hearing about tariffs and water and pesticides and all this. And I knew I'd made progress when at the end of the meeting, one of the farmers turns to me and says, I don't know why the President calls you watermelon head. You have a perfectly normal sized heart. And these are folks that know a little something about melons. So there's that. But on the national level, I continue to be deeply engaged. I carried the first War Powers Resolution introduced in Congress. This was to stop the boat strikes that are still going on, by the way, and still unlawful and still unconstitutional. And on a variety of issues, increasingly on artificial intelligence and other key challenges. Getting deeply immersed. What you may have noticed is I'm no longer chairing the Intelligence Committee. It will take some time to gain that kind of seniority in the Senate. But having the footprint of representing California gives you a kind of a leg up as a new senator, a different kind of standing than some of your colleagues from much smaller states. I remember when I won my primary and had not won the general yet. I got a call from Kamala Harris, who once had my job, and she said, and I am still struck by this. Do you realize that when you step on the Senate floor representing California. You'll be representing one out of every eight Americans. And that really put it in context for me how big that job is.
- [54:45]
Event Moderator
Yeah. Hey, there's a whole other Adam Schiff that most people don't know about. Screenwriter. Endurance athlete. Standup comedian. It's true. Magician. Magician. Magician. Huh?
- [55:01]
Senator Adam Schiff
Magician. I didn't even know about that one.
- [55:04]
Event Moderator
Is that still who you are when the Senate's not looking? And do you ever sleep? Well,
- [55:12]
Senator Adam Schiff
I have to say, the president has ruined my training schedule like everything else, so I'm not doing triathlons. I just don't have the time to train for that. But, you know, my favorite outside the job kind of stuff is going to dinner with my wife and going out to the movies. I still like seeing movies in a movie theater. And I'm glad to see that Gen Z is bringing back going out to the movies. We desperately need that. I'm kind of a gym rat when I can get to the gym. That is about as much as I'm able to do these days in terms of comedy. I do a comedy event once or twice a year, which is a lot of fun. No political speeches. We have professional comedians come. I do a little stand up, but just so people will say, will yell out, don't give up the day job. But I often, for those of you that follow me or might follow me on social media, I often post a lot of late night comedy. And I, you know, thank God for the late night comedians because otherwise I think we'd all go mad if we weren't able to laugh right now. It can be so oppressively serious that, you know, I love watching these pros and passing on what they do. I also, if I can do a bit of self promotion, I have a YouTube channel and often incorporate movie scenes because I'm a movie buff. And one of my favorites I did recently is you can learn all you need to learn about politics from watching the Big Lebowski. And I go through that movie showing scenes, and I'll give you one illustration. I showed a scene of Matt Gaetz on the House floor attacking Kevin McCarthy because it brought to mind a scene of a scene from the Big Lebowski in which the dude tells John Goodman, you're not wrong, you're just an asshole.
- [57:18]
Michael Waltman
Foreign. I'm Michael Waltman, host of the Briefing Podcast. I'm a former White House speechwriter, a lawyer, and a constitutional scholar. And I'm president of the Brennan center for Justice. We work to repair and strengthen American democracy from gerrymandering to abuse of presidential power, from Supreme Court reform to congressional corruption and more. What fun. You're going to hear new ideas in this podcast, and you're going to hear about the strategies and the legal and political fights that will shape the next phase of American politics. If you care about our democracy, the briefing is a podcast for you.
- [57:59]
Event Moderator
Ready for a lightning round?
- [58:00]
Senator Adam Schiff
I am ready.
- [58:02]
Event Moderator
One minute. Everyone think fast. If I hadn't gotten into politics, I would have.
- [58:09]
Senator Adam Schiff
Oh, that's easy. Actually, I applied to medical school and got into medical school.
- [58:15]
Event Moderator
It took a little long.
- [58:16]
Senator Adam Schiff
Oh, well. So I would have been a doctor. And I have to say, given that we're in a synagogue, that when I told my parents that I was going to go to law school instead of medical school, it was a profound disappointment. There's nothing worse you can do to a Jewish mother than get this close to my son, the doctor, and snatch it away. So that one's easy.
- [58:37]
Event Moderator
Best advice you've ever gotten.
- [58:40]
Senator Adam Schiff
Never walk past an old friend to greet a new friend.
- [58:47]
Event Moderator
One thing about California that would genuinely surprise most Americans.
- [58:52]
Senator Adam Schiff
I was in Joshua Tree two weeks ago and the park ranger told me, do you realize this park is larger than the state of Rhode Island?
- [59:03]
Event Moderator
Walkout song at the improv.
- [59:06]
Senator Adam Schiff
Oh, won't back down.
- [59:10]
Event Moderator
One thing you miss about being Hollywood's congressman,
- [59:16]
Senator Adam Schiff
I really don't miss the House.
- [59:21]
Event Moderator
One thing you in particular.
- [59:22]
Senator Adam Schiff
I didn't have to travel as much.
- [59:24]
Event Moderator
One thing you don't miss at all about the House. About the Hollywood congressman.
- [59:29]
Senator Adam Schiff
Oh, one thing Hollywood.
- [59:31]
Event Moderator
Yeah.
- [59:32]
Senator Adam Schiff
Oh, gosh, you know, that's hard. I really love that job, too. One thing I don't miss at all.
- [59:42]
Event Moderator
You can pass.
- [59:43]
Senator Adam Schiff
Honestly, I have to pass. I can't come up with it.
- [59:45]
Event Moderator
All right. Olympic sport you're most looking forward to seeing at the 2028 LA Olympics.
- [59:53]
Senator Adam Schiff
Track and field.
- [59:54]
Event Moderator
Today, we're told that Taylor Swift is celebrating her marriage. Favorite Taylor Swift song.
- [60:01]
Senator Adam Schiff
Oh, can I tell you a story about this?
- [60:05]
Event Moderator
Last time it was Governor Shapiro and I said, lebron or Michael? And he just took the thing and I gotta talk now.
- [60:13]
Senator Adam Schiff
I really have to tell you this story. So when I was running for the Senate in the primary, I went to the Democratic Party convention. And if you've never been to a Democratic Party convention, it's like speed dating 3000 of your favorite activists. You have about 30 seconds with each of them to make your case, and they will ask you about everything under the sun. So it's two days long. I got through the two days. I thought I Did pretty well until I left the arena, left the convention center. And a young activist walks up to me, and he says, can I ask you a question? And I'm feeling very cocky at this point. Knock yourself out. And he says, what's your favorite Taylor Swift song? And my young press person is with me. And she says, wait, wait, wait. I want to get this on video. And I'm like, no, you really don't. And she's like, yo, I definitely do. And I'm like, no, you definitely. And I turned to the activist and I said, I really don't have one. And the activist says, oh, I would suggest when you're asked that question in the future, you say, maybe cruel Summer, or you say this or you say that. And I said to this activist, I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna do my own Taylor Swift homework. I'm gonna come up with my own favorite Taylor Swift song. So six months later, I'm at the next convention, another 3,000 people. What are the odds I'm gonna run into this kid? But of course. Of course I do. And do you remember me? And I said, yes, I do. And he says, what's your favorite Taylor Swift song? And I said, cardigan. And he says, cardigan, interesting choice. And then I said, here, I got a little too arrogant. And I said, but it has to be Taylor's version. Now, for those of you that are not swifties, okay, most of you know about this, okay? So she remade a lot of her songs. The problem is that there's only one version of Cardigan because it was after her split with her record company. But still, he gave me credit. I since, though, have a Taylor Swift song I like even more. It's called Exile. It's a duet, and it's fantastic.
- [62:14]
Event Moderator
All right, two more questions here. Favorite Southern California city, about 20 miles north of the Mexican border. Take your time.
- [62:25]
Senator Adam Schiff
Gosh, is it near San Diego?
- [62:27]
Event Moderator
There you go. And finally. Does the dude abide?
- [62:33]
Senator Adam Schiff
The dude totally abides.
- [62:36]
Harry Littman
All right.
- [62:37]
Event Moderator
Hey. I just want to end with a more reflective thought, perhaps in keeping with the 250th anniversary that we're marking tomorrow. You've spent your career, prosecutor, congressman, senator, defending the institutions of the republic and the moral aspirations I think embedded in its founding documents. So on the evidence of everything you've seen and done, are you optimistic that we are pulling out of this quicksand? And what does a more perfect union look like to you now from where you sit?
- [63:17]
Senator Adam Schiff
Thank you for asking this question, because it can be so heavy. And oppressive to just talk about all the problems and difficulties. And I am optimistic, and there is good reason to be optimistic. We are going to get through this. We're a deeply resilient country. We have been through worse, more difficult times than this. This too shall pass. I do think that what we do in this moment will determine how quickly it passes and how much damage we're forced to suffer along the way. But we will get through this. And even as we look at these, you know, these terrible characters that we have to be confronted with, the Bondies and the Battelles and the Gabbards and the Pultes and all the rest of them, we shouldn't lose sight of all the heroic people out there that should uplift us in our old department. I keep coming back to the case of the dismissal of the corruption case against Eric Adams, the mayor of New York. This was just such a shocking thing for anybody who had been in the Justice Department that you would dismiss a valid corruption case against a public official because they could be useful to you in unrelated policy. So they tried to get these prosecutors to dismiss the case and many of them refused at the cost of jobs they loved. They loved. I loved my time in the department. I know you did, too. I venerate it. And one of them, a Federalist Society lawyer, a former clerk for either Alito or Thomas, wrote to the department when he was asked to dismiss the case. He said he would not do it. He said, I'm sure you can find some coward or some fool, but it was never going to be me. And I look at examples like that and I think, you know, we're going to be all right. We're going to get through this. I look at the woman who was the head of the CDC who said, you can fire me or I'll quit, but I'm not going to go along with the anti vaxxer conclusions of a bunch of misfits. I'm just not going to do it. I look at the ordinary people in Minneapolis with their cell phone cameras out that risked everything for people they didn't even know. People delivering food to their neighbors so that neighbors didn't have to risk being deported or drove their neighbor's kids to school for them. I look at that goodness. I looked at that courage. I look at that strength, and I say to myself, we are going to be fine. We are going to be fine. There will come a time when we look back on this chapter, we wonder, how the hell did that guy ever become president twice? And it will be inexplicable to us. So I think, you know, as we come into this anniversary tomorrow, and notwithstanding all the the way he has tried to make this about him, there is a lot to celebrate about this country after 250 years. We're going through a difficult time. We did during Vietnam, it was the worst during the Civil War. We will get through this and it's thanks to people like all of you and I appreciate your having me today.
- [66:43]
Event Moderator
Please join me in thanking thanking Senator Adam Schiff thank you for tuning in
- [66:51]
Harry Littman
to One on One, a weekly conversation series from Talking Feds. If you like what you've heard, please tell a friend to subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts or wherever they get their podcasts. And please take a moment to rate and review the show. You can also subscribe to us on YouTube, where we are posting full episodes and daily updates on Top Legal Stories. Check us out on harrylitman.substack.com where we're posting two or three bulletins a week breaking down the various threats to constitutional norms and the rule of law. And Talking Fez has joined forces with the Contrarian. I'm a founding contributor to this new media venture and committed to reviving the diversity of opinion that feels increasingly rare in today's news landscape, where legacy media seems to be tacking toward Trump for business reasons rather than editorial ones. Rest assured, we're still the same scrappy independent podcast you've come to know and trust just now, linked up with an ambitious and vital project designed for this pivotal moment in our nation's legal and political discourse. Find out more@contrarian.substack.com thanks for tuning in, and don't worry. As long as you need answers, the Feds will keep talking. Talking Feds is produced by Lou Cregan and Katie Upshaw, associate producer Becca Haveian, sound Engineering by Matt McArdle, Rosie Dawn Griffin, David Lieberman, Hansuma Hadranathan, Emma Maynard and Hallie Necker are our contributing writers and production assistants by Akshaj Turbailu. Our music, as ever, is by the Amazing Philip Glass. Talking Feds is a production of Doledo llc. I'm Harry Littman. Talk to you later.