Adam Schiff on Principles & Values

Democratic Representative (CA-29)


Challenges to subpoenas not impeachable, stonewalling is

Q: One article of impeachment is obstructing Congress by refusing to comply with subpoenas. But the Supreme Court agreed to hear cases where the House had subpoenaed the president's financial records. Why is going to court an impeachable offense?

SCHIFF: Going to court is not an impeachable offense. Stonewalling completely, refusing to comply with the oversight of Congress, particularly during an impeachment inquiry is an impeachable offense. I think this may be the most serious of the articles, because it would fundamentally alter the balance of power and allow for much greater misconduct in the chief executive of the country.

Source: Fox News Sunday 2019 interview on impeaching Trump , Dec 15, 2019

Impeachment: Can't turn away from cheating in next election

It was one thing when the president invited foreign interference as a candidate [referencing Trump's public invitation that Russia should investigate Hillary Clinton], when he couldn't use the power of his office to make it so. It was another when, as president, he withheld hundreds of millions of dollars to coerce an ally, betray our national security, and try to cheat in the next election. That was not something we could turn away from. This president believes he is above the law and accountable to no one; this road was necessary.

They don't want the American people to see the facts. They realize what's been presented in the House is already overwhelming, but there's more damning evidence to be had, and they don't want the American people to see that, and I think that's disgraceful. I hope that the senators will insist on getting the documents, on hearing from the witnesses, on making up their own mind even if there are some senators who have decided this president can do nothing wrong.

Source: ABC This Week 2019 interview on impeaching Trump , Dec 15, 2019

Trump accepting assistance from Russians is criminal

Schiff got to the core of why Russia's efforts, combined with the Trump campaign's links to Russians during the 2016 election, warranted investigation. Even if, as Mueller concluded, the probe did not establish a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.

Schiff, in his closing questions to Mueller, asked if "knowingly accepting assistance from a foreign government," to which Mueller responded "a crime."

Schiff continued, adding that if knowingly accepting assistance from a "foreign government during a presidential campaign is an unethical thing to do."

"And a crime in certain circumstances," Mueller responded.

Schiff questioned whether public officials acting unethically "exposes them to compromise particularly in dealing with foreigners."

"True," Mueller responded again.

Schiff, in that brief interaction, helped cut to the center of why the Russia investigation was so critical--and why America needs to pay attention to the results.

Source: Vox.com onÿCongressional Testimony on Mueller Report , Jul 24, 2019

Anyone excerpt the president would have been indicted

Director Mueller, your work tells of a campaign so determined to conceal their corrupt use of foreign help that they risked going to jail by lying to you, to the FBI and to Congress about it and, indeed, some have gone to jail over such lies.

And your work speaks of a president who committed countless acts of obstruction of justice that in my opinion and that of many other prosecutors, had it been anyone else in the country, they would have been indicted.

You would not tell us whether you would have indicted the president but for the OLC only that you could not. So the Justice Department will have to make that decision when the president leaves office, both as to the crime of obstruction of justice and as to the campaign finance fraud that individual one directed and coordinated and for which Michael Cohen went to jail.

Source: Mueller Report House testimony regarding impeaching Trump , Jul 24, 2019

Congress must decide on impeachment, not Mueller

Notwithstanding the many things [Special Counsel Robert Mueller] addressed today and in your report, there were some questions you could not answer given the constraints you're operating under.

You would not tell us whether the counterintelligence investigation revealed whether people still serving within the administration pose a risk of compromise and should never have been given a security clearance, so we must find out.

We did not bother to ask whether financial inducements from any Gulf nations were influencing U.S. policy since it is outside the four corners of your report, and so we must find out.

You would not tell us whether the president should be impeached, nor did we ask you since it is our responsibility to determine the proper remedy for the conduct outlined in your report. Whether we decide to impeach the president in the house or we do not, we must take any action necessary to protect the country while he is in office.

Source: Mueller Report House testimony regarding impeaching Trump , Jul 24, 2019

Investigation necessary to expose Russian interference

[Rep. Schiff commented on Trump's behavior regarding various aspects of the Mueller Report]: Do we nonetheless go through an impeachment because to do otherwise would signal that somehow this president's conduct is OK, that future presidents can engage in this kind of corruption without consequence, or do we decide that we are better off doing oversight through the context of oversight hearings by the various committees rather than a formal impeachment?

The Mueller report makes it absolutely crystal clear that this investigation was absolutely necessary because it revealed a widespread, systemic effort by the Russians to help the Trump campaign. And that is the overriding conclusion of this report. We need to put our emphasis on making sure that kind of intervention never happens again.

Source: Fox News Sunday on 2019 Mueller Report , Apr 21, 2019

Firing FBI's Comey for hidden reasons is obstructing justice

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said that reports that President Trump attempted to order Attorney General Jeff Sessions to not recuse himself from the Russia investigation is evidence the White House attempted "to obstruct justice." Sessions's recusal led to the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller to head the Russia investigation

"The allegations in the Times piece, if accurate, provide further potential evidence that the White House was engaged in an effort to obstruct justice," Schiff told The Washington Post.

Schiff, the top Democrat on the House intelligence Committee, said if true that Sessions gathered info on Comey, that Sessions may have been "trying to set up some predicate for firing [Comey] without disclosing what the true reason was." "If this was part of an effort to conceal the real motive for firing Comey, that's very pertinent to obstruction of justice," Schiff told the Post.

Source: The Hill on proceedings for Impeaching Pres. Trump , Jan 5, 2018

Supports Hyde Park Declaration of "Third Way" centrism.

Schiff adopted the manifesto, "A New Politics for a New America":

As New Democrats, we believe in a Third Way that rejects the old left-right debate and affirms America’s basic bargain: opportunity for all, responsibility from all, and community of all.