Schiff vs. Trump: California’s U.S. Senate race defining battle

Called last year to stand and be admonished by his Republican colleagues for allegedly misleading the American public during his dogged investigations of former President Trump, Rep. Adam B. Schiff refused to back down.

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna accused Schiff of using his former leadership role on the House Intelligence Committee to wage an “all-out political campaign” against Trump. The Florida Republican said he spun a “web of lies” that were “so severe that they altered the course of the country forever” and “ripped apart American families.”

Schiff responded with the same prosecutorial righteousness he’d employed for years in congressional hearings and cable news shows, where he’d investigated and publicly shamed Trump for his campaign ties to Russia, his solicitation of political favors from Ukraine and his fomenting of the Jan. 6 insurrection and the election denial that underpinned it.

“To my Republican colleagues who introduced this resolution, I thank you. You honor me with your enmity. You flatter me with this falsehood,” the Burbank Democrat said. “You who are the authors of a big lie about the last election must condemn the truth tellers, and I stand proudly before you.”

Years after most of the events in question, Schiff was redrawing one of the most significant battle lines in modern American politics — between those who believe Trump is unfit for office and those who want him back in the White House. He also was holding firm in a head-to-head fight with Trump that has come to define his bid for the U.S. Senate against his Republican opponent, former All-Star Dodgers first baseman Steve Garvey.

In a nation polarized by the former president, Schiff’s years-long role as one of Trump’s chief antagonists has become central to the California race. Schiff is seen on the left as a pure-minded hero who stood up to Trump’s repeated assaults on democracy, and on the right as a villain who orchestrated a multi-pronged, deeply partisan effort to topple the former president from power.

In a recent interview with The Times, Schiff said his multiple investigations of Trump “uncovered abuse of office and abuse of power unlike anything we’ve seen outside Watergate,” and he wouldn’t do a thing differently today. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, one of his most powerful allies, told The Times that “California voters should view Adam’s work with great pride.”

“This is a person of great, great integrity, admired by his colleagues for that but also for his intellect — because he’s brilliant, knowledgeable and strategic, and because he cares about the American people,” the former House speaker and fellow California Democrat said.

Cathy Abernathy, a political consultant based in Bakersfield who has worked closely with former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy for years, said Schiff is running for Senate as a Trump critic because he has nothing else to show Californians for his two decades in Congress.

“A lot has been going wrong, and I don’t know any of those things that Schiff could take credit for trying to solve, because he doesn’t talk about those things,” Abernathy said. Instead, he focuses on being “an attack dog.”

Garvey said during a January Senate primary election debate that Schiff “lied to 300 million people” about Trump’s alleged misdeeds and “can’t take that back.” Trump, during a recent stop in the state, called Schiff “one of the sleaziest politicians in history.”

The result is a Senate race steeped in significance as the latest Schiff vs. Trump showdown and a California referendum on an astonishing chapter in American history — and whose version of it is the truth.

Great Seal in blue with black rectangle and red pen mark

Rep. Adam Schiff stands next to a photo of Donald Trump shaking hands with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

On Russian ‘collusion’

In the months leading up to Trump’s 2016 election, the FBI began investigating Russian interference in the race — and unverified claims that Trump associates were aiding those efforts. The probe spun into multiple investigations, including by Congress and by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III. A later inquiry, by Special Counsel John Durham, investigated the origins and legitimacy of the FBI’s work.

Mueller and Durham were appointed by Justice Department officials in the Trump administration.

The investigations found unambiguous evidence of Russian interference. Mueller’s investigation concluded the Russians had conducted a sophisticated social media campaign favoring Trump and disparaging his opponent Hillary Clinton, and hacked and released Democratic Party and Clinton campaign emails.

However, the investigations did not conclude that there was enough evidence to charge any Trump associates with criminally conspiring with the Russians — which set the stage for a major battle between Democrats and Republicans, with Schiff at the center.

Thanks to his position on the House Intelligence Committee, Schiff had early access to witness testimony and other investigative findings. And before the investigations had concluded, he was claiming publicly that there was evidence the Trump campaign had “colluded” with the Russians.

The claims enraged Trump and Republicans, who accused Schiff of lying. The criticism peaked in March 2019, when then-Atty. Gen. Bill Barr released a four-page summary of Mueller’s 440-page report that said Mueller “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”

Trump tweeted that Schiff had “spent two years knowingly and unlawfully lying and leaking” and “should be forced to resign from Congress!”

Democrats — including Schiff — were suspicious of Barr’s summary, and for good reason. Mueller was complaining to Barr behind closed doors that Barr’s letter had misrepresented his work, according to reporting by The Times and other outlets, and when Mueller’s actual report was released it became clear Barr had left out substantial nuance.

According to the full report, Mueller’s investigation “identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign.” It said it “did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” but also that any “statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.”

The report said Mueller’s team did not consider whether there was evidence of “collusion” when weighing the various interactions between Trump officials and the Russians, because collusion is not a specific offense under American law. Instead it considered whether there was sufficient evidence to show “conspiracy” or “coordination,” which it said would have required a clear agreement between the two parties to interfere in the election.

The report said such “coordination” requires “more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other’s actions or interests,” and that the investigation “did not establish” such coordination. It said investigators had identified “numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign,” but the evidence “was not sufficient to support criminal charges.”

Former Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III testifies before the House Intelligence Committee.

The report also noted that several Trump campaign associates had lied to investigators about their interactions with the Russians or their intermediaries, and been criminally charged as a result.

After the report was released, Schiff slammed Barr for deceiving the nation to protect Trump. He and his allies maintain to this day that there is an array of evidence showing collusion. Among other things, Schiff has repeatedly noted the following:

In 2016, Russian operatives reached out to Trump foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos, offering dirt on Clinton. Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI to conceal those interactions.
The same year, Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr., his son-in-law Jared Kushner and his campaign chairman Paul Manafort met in Trump Tower with a Russian attorney with ties to senior Kremlin officials. The meeting was granted after an intermediary had offered dirt on Clinton in an email to Trump Jr., saying it was “part of Russia and its government’s support” for his father.
Weeks after the Trump Tower meeting, Trump directly asked the Russians to “find” Clinton’s emails.
Manafort repeatedly met during the 2016 campaign with a Russian intelligence asset named Konstantin Kilimnik, providing Kilimnik with internal campaign polling data. Manafort lied to Mueller’s team about his interactions with Kilimnik and various other matters, and went to prison. Trump later pardoned Manafort.
Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security advisor, twice pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his interactions with the Russians during Trump’s presidential transition period. Trump pardoned Flynn.

In his recent interview with The Times, Schiff said he does not believe he ever misled the American people.

“When I, for example, talked about how the Trump campaign was inviting Russian help, exploiting Russian help, lying about it, I was very careful in the language that I chose and I always distinguished between evidence of a fact and proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” he said. “Well before Mueller finished his report, I said it may be that Mueller concludes he can’t prosecute, but that doesn’t mean there’s not evidence that the Trump campaign tried to collude with the Russians. And that’s exactly what Mueller ended up saying.”

Republicans feel very differently.

They have dismissed the many connections between Trump associates and Russian intelligence assets as completely innocent on the Trump side, and focused instead on Durham’s subsequent investigation into the origins of the probe. Durham found flaws in how the FBI decided to launch its investigation, its use of unsubstantiated, Democratic-funded opposition research in doing so, and its process for obtaining court authorities to surveil a low-level Trump advisor.

Durham’s investigation, which led to a single conviction of an FBI attorney for doctoring an email used to justify one surveillance authority, concluded the FBI should not have launched its investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia. A Justice Department inspector general’s report, by contrast, found the FBI had sufficient justification to open the inquiry, despite its flawed process.

Adam Schiff and reporters walk down the steps outside the House of Representatives.

Luna’s censure resolution against Schiff asserted the claim Trump colluded with Russia was proved false and “invented, funded, and spread by President Trump’s political rivals.” It asserted Schiff repeatedly claimed to have evidence of collusion even though such evidence “never existed.”

In an interview with The Times, Luna said Durham and others proved Schiff was lying to advance his and his party’s political interests.

She blamed Schiff for the entire $32-million cost of the Mueller investigation, and said Californians “deserve better” in the Senate.

“You can have differing opinions on how to run the country,” she said, “but when you’re using your position and knowingly lying in an effort to dupe the American people into voting one way, I just don’t have any respect for that.”

Trump’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment. Garvey declined to weigh in directly on Schiff and Trump’s dueling relationship, but said in a statement to The Times that his own campaign is focused on “the issues that truly matter to California” and not on “partisan or special interests.”

On the Ukraine call

In July 2019, then-President Trump had a phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in which he urged the Ukrainian leader to pursue investigations tied to Joe Biden — Trump’s chief political opponent — while hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid for the country were being withheld.

The call erupted into a massive scandal. While Trump insisted it was a “perfect call,” Schiff and other Democrats called it an egregious abuse of power and immediately launched an investigation.

Schiff would ultimately lead a successful House impeachment of Trump for improperly pressuring Ukraine’s leaders to investigate his political rival, before the Senate acquitted him.

On the call, Trump told Zelensky that the U.S. does a lot for Ukraine, then urged Zelensky to initiate investigations tied to Biden and his son. Trump also suggested Zelensky should be in touch with Trump’s personal attorney, former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, who also was encouraging Ukrainian investigations into Biden.

Diplomats and other witnesses — who spoke to investigators despite warnings not to from the Trump administration — said Trump’s withholding of military aid was tied to his demands for the Biden investigation, and that Giuliani’s unofficial campaign for the same had undermined U.S. foreign policy in the region.

Trump denied any “quid pro quo” linking a Biden investigation with the military aid. He also denied sending Giuliani to Ukraine to push for the Biden probe — until the Senate acquitted him, at which point he admitted to doing so.

Schiff, by then chair of the House Intelligence Committee, was front and center throughout the impeachment process — and became a prime target of Trump and his defenders.

Among other things, Schiff was denounced by Trump and Republicans for dramatizing Trump and Zelensky’s call during a House hearing. Schiff had prefaced his remarks by saying they represented “in not so many words” the “essence of” what Trump had said.

Republicans called his remarks a gross misrepresentation designed to mislead the public, and Trump suggested Schiff should be arrested for “treason.” Luna’s censure blamed him for having “misled the public” by “reading a false retelling” of the call.

“I’ve heard the transcript of the call with Zelensky and Trump,” Luna said, “and according to what I read and saw, I did not see anything that would be cause for concern.”

Pelosi — who chose Schiff to lead the proceedings — called his work “exemplary,” and dismissed Republican claims that he misled the public.

“It has nothing to do with what happened. They project their own bad behavior onto other people,” Pelosi said. “I cast aside their excuses for the president’s very, very poor behavior.”

Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-New York), who before being elected served on Schiff’s staff and as lead attorney in the impeachment case, told The Times that he was by Schiff’s side during much of the episode, and Schiff did a “phenomenal job” checking “a rogue president.”

“He used his own personal background as a prosecutor, his incredible intelligence, his political savvy and perhaps most of all his integrity to make sure that he was following the facts in every situation,” Goldman said.

‘A permanent place in Trump’s head’

Prior to Trump’s rise to power, Schiff said his Republican colleagues in the House — which he first entered in 2001 — never would have predicted he would become the “incredible liberal lightning rod” he is today.

But then “the country was suddenly threatened by this wannabe despot” while he was a leader on House Intelligence, he said, and “things changed dramatically.”

Now, he said, he seems to hold “a permanent place in Trump’s head.”

One result has been “lots of threats” directed toward not only him, but also his staff, his wife and his two children, Schiff said. Once, someone sent two bullets to his office, each marked with the name of one of his kids.

Schiff said he hopes and expects that Vice President Kamala Harris will be the country’s next president, but that if both he and Trump are elected, he “will do whatever is necessary to protect our democracies, to protect California and our rights and our freedoms at home and around the country and around the world.”

He said he expects doing so will “elevate the personal risk” for him, especially because Trump would be “more threatening than ever of his political enemies” given a recent Supreme Court decision that found for the first time that presidents enjoy sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution for “official acts” while in office.

But that ruling, Schiff said, makes congressional oversight of the White House more important than ever.

Source link