Full Interview — Sen. Adam Schiff on Iran, clean air rules and DOJ investigation on Newsom

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Senator Schiff, thank you so much for making time for us. [00:00:02] Adam Schiff: It's good to be with you. [00:00:03] Speaker 1: So now that we have the text and we've seen this peace agreement that the president has signed with Iran, what do you make of what Iran is getting versus the United States? [00:00:15] Adam Schiff: I think on both sides of the aisle there is really shock at how little the United States gets out of this deal, but how much Iran is receiving. Iran gets $24 billion in unfrozen assets. It gets a $300 billion reconstruction fund. It gets the immediate relaxation of sanctions. It can export its oil. It can use financial institutions. It can do things it's not been permitted to do in decades. It gets us to commit not to involve ourselves in Iranian internal affairs. So it basically says to the Iranian people, you know, good luck on your own. They have acknowledged they're going to allow Iran to have its missile capability. It is a total giveaway to Iran. There's even a suggestion that after 60 days Iran might be able to charge tolls for passage through the strait, something we've never allowed. And what does the United States get out of this? One paragraph that says Iran reaffirms its commitment not to develop a nuclear weapon and the use of the word reaffirm is telling in the sense that that promise is not a new thing. Now, whether they will ever abide by that is different, but they're giving us nothing. And a lot of what we're giving is immediate. So it's a total and complete capitulation by the administration, which is why I think it's raising such hackles and alarm among both Democrats and Republicans on the Hill. [00:01:46] Speaker 1: What are the next steps that you see happening on the Hill here? Do you foresee oversight? Could we see hearings? Could we see legislation to intervene possibly in any of this? [00:01:57] Adam Schiff: That's a very good question, because for weeks and weeks we couldn't get the Republicans to even have a single public hearing on the war in Iran. So we were losing service members. We were bombing another country. We're in the midst of a full-scale war, and they wouldn't have an open hearing on it. Finally, after weeks they succumbed and did, will they be willing to do hearings on this agreement? I wouldn't be surprised if they refuse, because they know how bad a deal it is, and the administration is probably not going to want to defend it. Republicans may be loath to be seen as aggressively criticizing it. And I hope we will. We darn well should, because this MOU could become a permanent deal in 60 days, and some of the damage may be irretrievable. So I hope we do. They're in the majority. If they don't hold hearings, we'll probably hold what we call shadow hearings, where, as a minority party, we bring in witnesses nonetheless. [00:02:57] Speaker 1: I know the trickle-down effect of this entire situation has been increased costs on Americans, on Californians. Do you have a sense of how this peace agreement impacts that? I mean, could we see some relief? Will Congress look into potentially providing some sort of relief, anything on that front? [00:03:19] Adam Schiff: Well, some of what has taken place during the war can never be replaced or restored. We lost 13 service members, including Robert Marzan from Sacramento. Those lives were given in the service of this country. Those people did their duty. But we did not have a commander-in-chief who deployed our forces for good reason. This was a war of choice. We had not been attacked by Iran. We had no threat of imminent attack. So this was a war of choice. And American consumers have paid heavily for it also. We paid $60 billion more in gas as a result of this war. And those costs continue. So that's hundreds and hundreds of dollars by every American family that has gone into this war. Will they ever recoup that? There's nothing in this agreement that suggests such a thing. Indeed, the $300 billion reconstruction fund is not for America. It's for Iran. So sadly, I don't see anything positive coming out of this war. [00:04:22] Speaker 1: I want to switch gears. You did mention gas prices. And I know the EPA just basically sent over California's emissions waivers over to Congress to potentially provide a path for them to be repealed. Does that concern you? [00:04:39] Adam Schiff: Absolutely. And the first time Republicans overturned the filibuster, they did so to repeal California's Clean Air Act rules. This was early in the Trump administration last year. The very first thing they did, the very first vote they voted to overturn the parliamentarian and do away with the filibuster was so that they could make California's air dirtier. And now they're proposing more waivers, more rules, more restriction on California's ability to keep its air clean. So California regulations that regulate how much tailpipes can emit of cancer-causing pollutants in the air, they want to do away with those regulations so that car companies and automobiles can pollute more, that's bad for our air. It's going to mean a lot more smoggy days in California, a lot more asthma and emphysema. It's just plain bad news. But this administration is so wholly in the tank for the oil companies that even as they're doing away with our clean air rules in California, they're also pushing these oil projects like the Sable Oil Pipeline. They're killing wind projects as they did in Morro Bay. It's just a retrograde, oil-friendly, renewable energy hostile, health hostile policy of the administration. [00:06:00] Speaker 1: But I mean, California right now is grappling with this situation where costs are getting higher. The Newsom administration here is acknowledging the closure of two refineries has impacted certainly what we could see at the fuel, at the pump and at the pump moving forward. And even both candidates running for governor right now have said that there should be a recalibration of the state's climate goals. And those waivers were an attempt to help move forward those state's climate goals. Just what do you make of the situation and this conflict that California is kind of in right now with its climate goals? [00:06:38] Adam Schiff: Well, I agree we need a refining capability in California, but I don't agree that we should be killing renewable energy projects like a wind power off our coast and putting more money into a fuel that costs us more. Renewable energy is now cheaper than oil. And so to be killing renewable energy, investing in oil makes no economic sense. It also doesn't make sense for our health. And all that the administration is going to do by killing these Clean Air Act rules in California, it's not going to bring down the cost of gas. If anything, it may just increase competition for gas because it will mean fewer electric vehicles on the road. So there'll be more competition for oil resources pushing gas prices higher. That's great news for the oil companies. And let's face it, that's what's driving this. You know, the push to drill more oil off the coast of California. Oil companies are making record profits, and they're making those record profits by exporting oil. This oil is not even for the use of California consumers. It's for export. So we get all the environmental harms, the harms to our air, the harms to our coastlines, of all the spills we've had over history. We get all the costs, and that oil is exported. Maybe oil companies get the benefit, maybe oil consumers overseas, but people at home in California, not so much. [00:08:02] Speaker 1: I want to switch gears to another big news item of the week, which is Governor Gavin Newsom coming out and announcing that basically he and his wife are under investigation by the Trump administration. Some law enforcement sources have said that there are indeed two investigations involving people associated with the governor. Just as someone who has been the target of a Trump administration investigation, just what's your perspective on this so far? [00:08:33] Adam Schiff: So I've been on the president's enemies list since he was president the first time because I led his impeachment and I served on the January 6th committee. So for me, this is nothing new, but I served for almost six years as a federal prosecutor. And to see the Justice Department so badly abused, to see the mass defections of prosecutors, ethical prosecutors leaving the office in Los Angeles where I serve, leaving offices all over the country. It is really horrifying. There used to be a presumption when I was a prosecutor, it was certainly the case that prosecutors were acting in good faith and judges gave them that presumption. Juries gave them that presumption. That presumption now has been flipped on its head. And in any case where the president announces that he wants his opponents investigated, the presumption should be flipped on its head. That is, there should be a presumption of irregularity. There should be a presumption against an investigation when it's one the president is calling for of his political enemies. So I think we have to assume that these are political, that these are not based on fact until proven otherwise. But to see the department use this way is doing lasting damage to the rule of law in America. And it's not just the president using the Justice Department to go after his enemies. He's also using it to protect his friends. So he's pardoning criminals that do business with his family. He is making investigations go away involving corrupt allies. The mayor of New York, the former mayor of New York, had been indicted on corruption charges. Donald Trump made those charges go away because the mayor was useful to him on other things. So we're seeing more corruption, not less, as a result of this Justice Department and its use against the president's enemies. [00:10:28] Speaker 1: But, I mean, the difference between you and other politicians who have been the target of some of these investigations, their ex-chiefs of staff were not indicted, and that's the case for the governor, where one of his advisors and chiefs of staff were, I mean, caught up in this corruption case that began with the Biden administration. I mean, is it out of the realm of possibility that there could be a legitimate investigation here, stemming from that, at least? [00:10:58] Adam Schiff: Well, my understanding is that the governor's former chief of staff said the governor had no involvement in what she ended up pleading guilty to. So that's, as much as I know of the facts of that, look, I'm not saying that there can never be merit to an investigation even when it involves someone that is not a fan of the president. But what we are seeing, what we have seen, is such dramatic proof of the abuse of the department. The indictment of James Comey over seashells, for example, is inexplicable. That case will be thrown out. It's just a question of how soon it will be thrown out, whether it's thrown out by a judge or thrown out by the jury. That is a terrible abuse. It is the effort to indict my colleagues over a video they made stating the obvious legal and constitutional truth that military officers do not have to obey unlawful orders, indeed have a duty not to. When you see abuses like that, then you just have to call into question any time they're calling for the prosecution of their enemies. So the proof has been quite compelling, and I think it shifts the burden to the Justice Department to prove what they're doing is legitimate. It doesn't place the burden on the president's political opponents. [00:12:15] Speaker 1: Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, he would not comment or say anything. I know when he was approached by CNN about this investigation potentially into the Newsom's on Blanche. I mean, do you, do you see him getting confirmed? [00:12:30] Adam Schiff: Well, you know, what Blanche has also said is that he has said, and this was while he's been auditioning to be Attorney General, he believes the president has both the right to go after his enemies and a duty to go after his enemies. No self-respecting prosecutor would ever say such a thing. And I think the problem for Todd Blanche is, having been Donald Trump's criminal defense lawyer before he was appointed acting AG, he has not been able to stop being Donald Trump's criminal defense lawyer. So when the Epstein case, an investigation blew up, what does Todd Blanche do? He goes to interview Ghislaine Maxwell, the main co-conspirator, interview her in prison, not to represent the Justice Department of the American people, he goes as Donald Trump's criminal defense lawyer to make sure she doesn't say anything that would incriminate him. And when Todd Blanche sets up the slush fund, he's doing that as Donald Trump's criminal defense lawyer. When he signs for the Justice Department this deal, letting Trump off for any tax crimes in the past, he's acting as Trump's criminal defense lawyer, not the lawyer of the American people. And that's the problem that he's facing in this confirmation. [00:13:45] Speaker 1: Senator Sheff, before I let you go, switching complete gears from here, I want to talk to you about two new proposals that you filed. I know you're, it's my understanding, you're the first California senator on the Ag Committee. And so just, I know your proposals have to do with the food supply chain. What can you tell us about those? [00:14:05] Adam Schiff: So I am the first California senator on the committee in 30 years. The last was Pete Wilson when he was in the Senate. And I have really been making an effort to get out to all of the agricultural parts of the state of California, meet farmers and farm workers and represent them. And I've introduced a number of bills now. The most recent two bills have to do with improving the ability of farmers to sell fresh produce to food banks. This allows us to have fresher, good, healthier food provided by food banks. It's also a source of income, really important one for small and mid-sized farmers. And the other bill helps farmers invest and be able to afford equipment and new technologies to improve their efficiency and to improve their ability to provide food within the supply chain. So these are both bills to help farmers. I have a number of others that are really focused on specialty crops, making sure we attack pests and disease that are really a threat to that industry, but also making sure that specialty crop farmers get the same kind of help from the federal government that row crop or commodity farmers get in the Midwest and the South, because California farmers really have not gotten help after natural disasters the way farmers in other parts of America have. [00:15:27] Speaker 1: What has the reception been like so far to these proposals? Bipartisan or? [00:15:33] Adam Schiff: Yes, both of these bills are bipartisan. And, you know, the reception that I've been getting, frankly, as I go to farm country in California has been very positive. I think they've really wanted a senator from the state on that committee for a long time, someone who's deeply interested in the issues, their livelihood. Many of them are multigenerational families. So I'm very much enjoying the work. [00:15:56] Speaker 1: All right. Senator Schiff, we really appreciate your time. Thank you so much for carving a little bit out for us today. [00:16:02] Adam Schiff: My pleasure. Thank you.