Adam Schiff says Trump ‘absolutely not' following war powers law: Full interview

[0:02] Welcome back. And joining me now is Democratic Senator Adam Schiff of California. [0:06] Senator Schiff, welcome back to Meet the Press. [0:10] Thank you. [0:11] Thanks so much for being here. Let's start with the war where I started with the acting [0:16] attorney general now past its 60-day mark. President Trump, as you know, sent a letter [0:22] to Congress arguing he does not need congressional approval because the ceasefire paused the clock [0:29] effectively. Do you think the administration is following the law? [0:32] No, absolutely not. And it's important to recognize this war was unlawful and unconstitutional [0:40] from the start. We didn't have to wait 60 days to reach that conclusion because under the [0:44] Constitution, only Congress can initiate a war or authorize a war or declare war. The only [0:52] exceptions are if the United States is attacked or there's an imminent threat of attack, then [0:56] the president can take action in the near term. That's when the 60-day clock begins. If there's [1:02] a legitimate reason to begin the war at the start. And there wasn't here. This is a war [1:07] of choice, which has now brought a terrible cost in 13 service members who lost their lives, [1:13] scores of others injured, many seriously injured, highest gas prices now in years. [1:19] It's pushed inflation up to a high in several years. And, of course, the opportunity cost [1:25] is that we can't invest in hospitals and health care and things that would improve the quality [1:29] of life for Americans. But this war was plagued from the start. It's also important in terms [1:36] of the War Powers Act. That act, as that Susan Collins quote illustrates, she's accurate about [1:42] that, dictates that U.S. forces have to be removed after 60 days unless Congress has intervened to [1:49] authorize action. We haven't. The Navy is still deployed. It is still blockading Iranian ports. [1:56] It is still interdicting ships. There is no exception for the U.S. Navy to the War Powers Act. [2:02] So what Mr. Blanche said is absolutely wrong. I think they understand that. And what's more, [2:09] the president's claim at the outset of your segment that no president has sought an authorization to [2:15] use force is also simply wrong. George W. Bush, of course, did both in Afghanistan and with the Iraq [2:21] War. Let me ask you, because back in 2007, you called on then-President Obama. In 2011, I should say, [2:28] you called on then-President Obama to seek congressional authorization for military force [2:33] in Libya after exceeding the 60-day mark. The Obama administration argued that because there [2:40] was no sustained fighting, the War Powers Act did not apply then. If Congress didn't enforce the law [2:48] then, why should Americans have confidence that it will be enforced now? Well, I think that was a [2:56] mistake then. I think it's an even bigger mistake now. The Obama administration at the time claimed [3:01] that hostilities had never begun. So they didn't make the acknowledgement that President Trump has [3:07] here, that he began a war two months ago. They claimed because of the limited nature of our engagement, [3:12] the limited risk of escalation, that hostilities as defined in the act never began. Now, I think that's [3:18] wrong and that's a mistake. And you're right. Both parties have fallen down on the job in terms of [3:23] asserting Congress's war power. But we've never had a full-fledged war like this that the president [3:29] himself acknowledges is war. And once more, as we talked about, the ceasefire of some of the bombing [3:38] does not toll. There is no tolling provision in the War Powers Act. So that's just plain wrong. [3:44] But you're right. Both parties have been at fault here. But I don't think we've ever had such a clear [3:49] violation of the act as we have right now. Let me ask you about the impact here at home. Obviously, [3:54] the center of it, those high gas prices, they rose to a four-year high this week. Democratic Senate [4:01] nominee James Tallarico has called to suspend the federal gas tax of 18 cents per gallon until prices [4:09] start to fall. Is that something that you would support in the Senate, suspending the federal gas tax? [4:15] You know, I've argued in the past, under circumstances much less egregious than this, [4:23] that we could suspend the gas tax, but we needed to pay for it with a windfall profits tax [4:27] on the oil companies that are making money hand over fist. So I would support a proposal like that, [4:33] that won't deplete us of revenue to fix our roads. But really, the best remedy to bring down gas prices [4:39] is to bring this illegal war to an end. And I don't think anything short of that is really going to [4:45] make a demonstrable impact on price at the pump. The way prices are going up and the speed they're [4:51] going up, it would very quickly eat up any savings from suspending the gas tax. But I'd be willing to [4:57] entertain that if the oil companies who are making such big profits have to pay for it. [5:01] Well, let me follow up with you and ask about your state specifically. California [5:05] has the highest tax on gasoline, ranging between $0.60 to $0.70 per gallon. Would you call on [5:13] Governor Gavin Newsom to suspend the gas tax in your state? [5:17] Well, again, I'd be open to that as long as we place that windfall profits tax on the oil companies. [5:26] But look, in California, we have some of the dirtiest air in the country. We've made a lot of progress [5:31] in trying to address it. Some of these revenues go to helping us do that, as well as maintain and [5:36] improve our roads, our bridges, and a lot of the deferred maintenance, which is very much a need. [5:42] So we have to continue to invest in infrastructure. Again, I think the way to try to reduce prices, [5:49] as well as make sure we have the resources to invest in our cities, is by making sure oil companies [5:54] are pairing their fair share, not gouging people. And that's, in addition to ending this war, [6:00] I think, the kind of steps we need to take. [6:02] Let me ask you about former FBI Director James Comey, indicted, of course, over that social media [6:07] post, which federal prosecutors say was a threat to harm President Trump. You just heard my [6:12] conversation with Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche about this. You have called the case, [6:18] quote, a vindictive prosecution, but a grand jury did sign off on the case. Are you saying that you [6:25] do not have faith in that grand jury? Look, as one judge notably said, a skilled prosecutor can [6:35] indict a ham sandwich. The prosecutor gets to show the grand jury what it wants to show the [6:39] grand jury. It is not, you know, the grand jury doesn't get to see a lot of the exculpatory evidence, [6:46] doesn't have independent legal experts to talk about how frivolous this case is. I'm sure none of [6:51] that was done here. And look, the only facts that distinguish this case from those people buying [6:57] things on Amazon or posting things on Amazon is not any particular facts that are not visible to the [7:03] public. It's the fact that James Comey is a political opponent of the president's. It's the [7:08] fact the president has called upon him for prosecution. It's the fact that Todd Blanche wants [7:14] to keep this job. It's the fact that Pam Bondi didn't successfully bring a case against one of [7:19] the president's enemies. All of that is deeply illegitimate. I was a prosecutor for almost six [7:26] years. I never saw such a weak case. And I think, Kristen, in the future, in the Department of [7:31] Justice, if anyone ever suggests bringing a case this week, there'll be a new name for it. They'll [7:36] be called seashells cases. Are you telling me we should bring another seashells case? I think this [7:42] case is likely to be thrown out even before it goes to a jury. It will absolutely be thrown out [7:47] by the jury. But the fact that we're spending time on a seashells case and the top leadership of the [7:54] Justice Department is so focused on it means they're not focused on violent crime cases. They're [7:59] not focused on rape cases and child trafficking. They're focused, no, on James Comey and seashells. [8:06] And it's the American public that suffers. As you know, and as I just read, your name [8:11] was on that list. Are you concerned, Senator, that you could be next? [8:19] I'm not concerned in the sense that if they bring a case against me, it'll suffer the same fate as [8:23] this one is likely to suffer. But what I am concerned about is, you know, all that is lost [8:29] in the Justice Department, a department that, you know, I loved and venerated my time there. [8:34] We now have scores of seasoned prosecutors who are leaving by the hundreds, by the thousands, [8:40] who are asked to do unethical things and, you know, properly are saying no. We're seeing [8:46] indictments, as we saw in New York, dismissed against a corrupt mayor or a mayor facing corruption [8:51] cases or allegations because he's willing to help the president on an unrelated issue like [8:57] immigration. I'm talking about the former mayor of New York here. These kind of abuses mean that [9:03] the department isn't going after oil companies that are price gouging. It's not going after companies [9:08] that are abusing consumers. It's not protecting us from monopolistic conduct in the market. It is [9:15] instead focused on the president's agenda of retribution. And that's a terrible use of resources [9:22] and a terrible precedent to set. [9:24] Let me turn to redistricting, of course, the Supreme Court. There are concerns that this latest [9:32] ruling could limit the use of race in redistricting and could grant Republicans a handful of seats, [9:39] concerns among some Democrats. Let me get your reaction, because Democrats promised that some of [9:45] these redistricting efforts were going to be temporary. But Leader Hakeem Jeffries said, quote, [9:50] we are in an era of maximum warfare everywhere all the time. Should Democrats break their promise [9:58] not to redistrict and continue with these redistricting fights, Senator? [10:05] Well, first of all, I think it's important to understand what's behind all of this. [10:08] Why did President Trump begin the redistricting wars? Why is the Supreme Court, which is no longer [10:14] a conservative court, it's merely a partisan court, a conservative court would have some respect [10:18] for precedent. They don't. Why did they bring that voting rights case to begin with? And it's because [10:24] their agenda is so deeply unpopular. They feel they're going to lose their majority unless they can [10:29] gerrymander the districts, unless they can affirmatively use race to disenfranchise people. [10:35] So this is why this whole redistricting war began. And yes, Democrats made the decision, [10:41] we're going to fight this fight if that's the task at hand, if we need to do it, [10:45] to make sure that voters actually have a choice in the policies of this country. Whether that will be [10:51] temporary or permanent, I hope it is temporary. I hope that Congress will pass a bill that I've sponsored [10:58] and co-sponsored for years, which would outlaw the gerrymander nationwide. I hope the country gets so [11:04] sick of this, of politicians writing their own maps and choosing their own voters, [11:09] instead of voters choosing their own elected officials, that they insist on a national [11:13] redistricting reform. But I suspect if the Republicans continue to do this, Democrats are going to find the [11:21] necessity and feel the necessity of fighting fire with fire. But this is really a poor trend, [11:27] an anti-democratic trend for the country. And I hope that when Democrats take power in both houses [11:33] and once again take power in the White House, that we will insist on a national redistricting reform [11:38] and end these gerrymanders for good. [11:41] All right. Quickly, I want to ask you about the gubernatorial race in California, the primary just about a month [11:47] away. You endorsed a former representative, Eric Swalwell, who withdrew, and you withdrew your support [11:53] amid allegations of sexual misconduct. The primary, again, right around the corner. [12:00] Will you endorse a new candidate? And who is that? [12:05] You know, I haven't decided myself who I'm going to support in the governor's race. The field is a [12:11] different field and it is changing every day. But I will say this. What would get me to be involved [12:19] is if I felt that the concern, that the risk that with this jungle primary system, which I think is [12:25] a terrible system, if it produced two Republicans in the runoff and Democrats didn't even have a choice [12:31] in November, if I felt that the odds of that had increased to the point where really we must act, [12:38] then I would. Barring that, I first want to decide who I'm supporting myself. [12:43] And I'm reluctant to get involved again. All right. Well, when you make that decision, [12:47] please come back. Let us know. Senator Adam Schiff, thank you so very much for being here. [12:52] Thank you. [12:54] We thank you for watching. And remember, stay updated on breaking news and top stories on the NBC News app [13:00] or watch live on our YouTube channel.