Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) at the Washington Post by Kari Nelson, Impact Investing Intern, University of Virginia
On June 7, as part of The
Washington Post’s recurring series Securing Tomorrow, Representative
Adam Schiff (D-CA), the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, sat
down with David Ignatius of The
Washington Post to discuss the investigation into Russian meddling in the
2016 election and possible collusion or ties to the Trump campaign. I was in
the room for this interview, so I’m going to try to answer the most important
question: What important things did we learn from this interview?
Rep. Schiff commented on former FBI Director James Comey’s
description of President Trump’s behavior in a written statement submitted by
Comey on June 7, which included the President describing the Russia
investigation as “’a cloud’ that was impairing his ability to act on behalf of
the country,” and asking what the FBI “could do to ‘lift the cloud.’” Schiff
called this behavior “certainly evidence of interference or obstruction.” This
is important. As we know from Watergate, obstruction of justice is a potentially
impeachable offense, so this question of if Trump obstructed justice is
important to the big picture question of how much longer he’ll be in office.
Continuing, however, Schiff brings up a good point that the practical question
of if Trump could be impeached for obstruction of justice is a more complicated
matter: even if there is a legal case to be made that Trump obstructed justice,
you may not be able to persuade enough GOP members in the Republican Congress
that they can justify a vote for impeachment to their constituents. This is a
sticky situation, especially when one considers that prominent legal minds such
as Jeffrey Toobin and Alan Dershowitz can’t even agree on whether Trump’s
behavior is obstruction of justice. None of this is new or shocking
information, we’ve been hearing about obstruction of justice since around the
time of the Comey firing, but this question of if there is a legal case that
Trump obstructed justice and, if so, if there’s a chance he may be impeached
for it is extremely significant and it’s important to see where Schiff’s
thinking is on this.
Schiff also commented on President Trump’s withdrawal from
the Paris climate agreement, calling it “one of the single most destructive
acts of a President” that he “can remember” because “we have just given up the
leadership globally on one of the most important issues globally,” (that
important issue being climate change). This is important because climate change
is a huge issue and U.S. global leadership is important, but this isn’t shocking
news: there are very few Democrats in Congress that agree with Trump’s decision
to withdraw from the Paris agreement. In bringing up Paris though, Schiff
brought light to one very important issue: the Democrats play too nice. Democrats
need to be more assertive in “calling out the President when he violates the
norms of office, the letter of the law, or anything like it,” or they aren’t
going to win elections. He also noted
that Democrats need to reach out to “shrinking communities, where people literally
felt left behind,” and more effectively demonstrate to those communities how
and why Democratic policies would improve their lives. In my opinion, these two
points about calling out Trump and reaching out to communities where people
feel left behind are very important. (I should note here that I consider myself
a Democrat and I want the Dems to have a majority in the House and Senate, and
to have control of the White House.) Obviously something the Democrats are
doing isn’t working or the Republicans wouldn’t have control of Congress and
the White House, and some major changes need to be made if Dems are going to be
win back control of either chamber of Congress in 2018 or the White House in
2020. I don’t have the answers for what these changes should be, but it’s
important for prominent Democrats like Adam Schiff to talk about these issues
and really start a conversation within the Democratic Party (and the DNC under
it’s new chair Tom Perez) about what should be happening differently.
Schiff also said that he agreed with Senator Angus King’s
(I-ME) assertion that Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and National
Security Agency Director Mike Rogers had no acceptable justification to refuse
to answer questions regarding their conversations with President Trump and
whether or not Trump attempted to get Coats and Rogers to intervene in the
FBI’s Russia investigation. Pay attention to this. There is some talk that
these two men should be charged with Contempt of Congress, and I’m not a lawyer
so I won’t comment on that; but as more hearings occur, this suggests that
Democrats will be united in putting a lot of pressure on Trump personnel to
fully answer all questions they legally can. We have yet to see if this
increase in pressure will stop anyone during future hearings from refusing to
answer a question just so they don’t embarrass Trump, but it will definitely be
interesting to see if someone does and, if so, how Dems will push back.
Schiff also brought up the timing of events leading up to
the firing of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn:
·
Jan. 26:
Acting Attorney General Sally Yates warns White House that the then- National
Security Advisor Michael Flynn may be compromised
·
Jan. 27:
Trump invites then- FBI Director Comey to a private meal and asks for a pledge
of loyalty
·
Feb. 13:
Flynn fired
·
Feb. 14:
Trump asks Comey to drop investigation into Flynn
Did Trump’s decision to invite Comey to dine with him and
request Comey’s loyalty have to do with Yates’s warning? These events, as well
as their timing, paint “an alarming picture” of the POTUS, according to Schiff.
Schiff brings up an important point, one that I believe John Oliver expressed
best when he told viewers to keep reminding themselves “this is not normal”
during the Trump presidency; we cannot become desensitized to the dangerous
antics of this administration.
Lastly, Schiff noted that the House Intelligence Committee’s
investigation into Russia is just getting started. This tells all of us
following the investigations into Trump and Russia that we’re probably not
going to learn the whole story any time soon, if ever. So if you’re like me and
you’ve been watching cable news every night to learn the latest about possible
collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, keep watching and waiting but
pace yourself, this is going to be a long and weird journey.
I’ve discussed the main points from David Ignatius’s
interview with Rep. Adam Schiff here, but I really recommend that anyone who is
interested in politics watch it in it’s entirety (https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/postlive/securing-tomorrow-with-david-ignatius-and-rep-adam-schiff/2017/06/07/2bc20bca-4be9-11e7-987c-42ab5745db2e_video.html).
It’s a rare treat to see a politician be as straightforward in an interview as
Schiff was, and Ignatius asked interesting and important questions, so it’s
worth it to give up 1 hour, 2 minutes, and 2 seconds of your life to watch the
full interview.