Connect with us

Congress

How an Adam Schiff indictment could shake the Senate

Published

on

President Donald Trump’s retribution campaign against his political adversaries could soon hit the Senate — and lawmakers are already bracing for impact.

After securing the indictments of former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, Trump has his sights set on Sen. Adam Schiff, the California Democrat who as a member of the House managed the president’s first impeachment trial.

If Schiff ends up indicted on allegations of mortgage fraud — a charge he has vehemently denied — or for any other claim, it would mark an unprecedented escalation for Trump to target an outspoken political adversary who is also a federal elected official.

As Schiff solicits dollars for a legal defense fund and builds an expansive political operation prepared to do damage control around any potential charges, Schiff’s Democratic colleagues in Congress are increasingly anxious about their own vulnerability. They are also frustrated with the unwillingness of Republican senators to speak out on Schiff’s behalf.

“I’ve spoken to a number of Republicans, and they are certainly disquieted, if not dismayed, by the increasing weaponization of the Department of Justice,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). “Because it tears down the norms and rule of law that protects them and all Americans, as well as Adam Schiff and Democrats who may be targeted by Trump.”

It has been just a few months since news broke that Schiff was being investigated for mortgage fraud relating to the financing of his Maryland residence — and weeks since Trump in a social media post called on Attorney General Pam Bondi to go after Schiff, Comey and James. Recent reports have suggested the case against Schiff has stalled as prosecutors are said to be struggling to find sufficient evidence to bring up charges.

“[Trump has] been more than willing to go after his political opponents — to go after universities, to go after law firms, to go after media organizations,” Schiff said last week. “It’s all part of the same effort to silence and intimidate critics and, I think, needs to be recognized for what it is.”

The investigation remains ongoing, however. And FBI Director Kash Patel, another longtime Schiff foe, continues to brandish accusations that Schiff, as chair of the House Intelligence Committee, sought to leak potentially damaging information about Trump. 

A report from the DOJ Office of Inspector General, in which names have been redacted, found that the witness levying the leaking charges against Schiff had “little support for their contentions.” Schiff, through a spokesperson, has denied the claims.

Lawmakers of both parties are now closely watching to see what will become of Schiff. Interviews with senators revealed concerns that their institution is at risk of becoming further polarized if the DOJ goes ahead with charges.

“You can’t go around threatening people everyday and have a collaborative environment,” said Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.).

Democrats are on edge, worrying a Schiff indictment would open the floodgates to more targeting of Democratic elected officials. Many Republicans are either visibly uncomfortable with the dynamics or unwilling to weigh in on a matter that could put them crosswise with the president.

Because Trump took the step of publicly calling on his attorney general to go after Schiff — a break with historical precedent in which the White House has kept its distance from the Justice Department — an indictment would play out differently on Capitol Hill than past episodes where lawmakers have found themselves under legal scrutiny.

The most recent senatorial indictment — of Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), accused of bribery in 2023 — presented an awkward situation for many of his longtime colleagues in both parties. Most Democrats repeated the “innocent until proven guilty” mantra while praising him for stepping aside from his leadership post atop the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as the case worked through the system.

Menendez was convicted at trial and is now serving an 11-year prison sentence. In recent months, he has sought to endear himself to Trump, who has pardon-granting power.

But Schiff’s indictment would challenge those old norms in almost every way. Democrats are expected to rush to his defense and blast the Trump administration for carrying out a personal vendetta. Many Republicans will have to decide how strongly to push back, if they do at all.

Senate Democrats concede they are nervous about the looming threat. Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, for instance, said in an interview her team has been in touch with Schiff’s office about how to prepare to be the subject of a Trump investigation.

“We’ve already created a break-glass plan for ourselves if the spotlight turns to others in the caucus,” said Slotkin. A former CIA analyst from a swing state, her decision to support impeaching Trump in 2019 helped catalyze the successful vote in the House.

“It’s based on the experience we’ve watched Adam go through,” she continued of her own preparations. “How do you have a lawyer ready to go? How do you make sure … you know the legal left and right limits of what you can and cannot do? How do you think about a legal defense fund? I mean, there’s a lot of details.”

Schiff’s national profile precedes his current predicament, which means he’s had a considerable infrastructure supporting him. In the years between his election to the House in 2000, his rising to prominence during the first Trump administration, and then winning a Senate seat last year, he has assembled a team of Democratic firms and advisers.

He is standing up a legal defense fund and has an $8.6 million campaign war chest, more than $2 million of which was raised in the year’s most recent fundraising quarter alone — notable because he is not up for reelection until 2030.

A spokesperson for Schiff would not say how much cash is currently in the legal defense fund, but donations from any unrelated individual into that fund cannot exceed $10,000 per fiscal year and lawmakers cannot transfer campaign money into the account. Per Senate rules, members may set up a legal expense trust fund to pay for their defense, but they have to regularly disclose contributions and spending to the Senate Ethics Committee.

Schiff is being represented by the legal giant WilmerHale; one of his lawyers is Preet Bharara, a former U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York who was fired by Trump in 2017 for refusing to follow orders to resign as a Barack Obama-era appointee.

On Capitol Hill, Democrats want Republicans to step up and offer support, too.

“We’re in the middle of a totalitarian takeover, in part, because even threatening major political figures like Adam Schiff … with arrest undoubtedly has a chilling impact on political speech,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said in an interview. “It’s been heartbreaking to see relative silence from Republicans in the face of these threats.”

Schiff said he has not yet heard directly from GOP colleagues about his case. However, Murphy is among some Senate Democrats, including Blumenthal, who say they are privately back-channeling with Republicans about the DOJ’s actions against Trump’s political enemies, including Schiff.

For many of the Republican Senators who work alongside Schiff daily, the situation is complicated. Notoriously chatty Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and John Kennedy (R-La.) — Trump loyalists who serve with Schiff on the Senate Judiciary Committee — declined to discuss the matter.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) would only point to the probe’s reportedly dimming prospects when asked for his reaction to the case.

“I just go by what I saw on television, that the people in the Justice Department thought … it was a difficult case to win,” he said.

A spokesperson for the Department of Justice declined to comment and pointed to a recent social media post from Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche denying news reports about the obstacles in charging Schiff for mortgage fraud.

Some Senate Republicans are avoiding comment on Schiff’s predicament by maligning former President Joe Biden for weaponizing the Justice Department — exactly what Democrats say is happening now under Trump.

“I don’t know the underlying facts, but I believe the Department of Justice should enforce the law and not be weaponized the way it was for four years under Joe Biden,” said Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) in an interview.

Further underscoring the treacherous terrain in which Schiff now finds himself is that some Republicans are outwardly eager to have him targeted.

“Adam Schiff was probably the most corrupt member of Congress when it came to pushing the totally false collusion hoax. … He used his position as chair of Intel to push that thing,” said Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.). He was referring to the accusations during the first Trump impeachment trial that centered around claims that Trump pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to dig up information about Biden.

Johnson, the chair of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, is now leading an inquiry into revelations that Biden special counsel Jack Smith obtained the phone records of Republican lawmakers as part of his probe into Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results.

“It’s unfortunate the Democrats in California would elect someone like that who’s been censured by the House, that is so thoroughly proven a liar,” said Johnson, referring to a Republican-led 2023 House effort to condemn Schiff for his role in investigating Trump.

“He needs to be investigated,” he added.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Congress

House Democrats once again left complaining about a Senate spending deal

Published

on

For the third time in less than a year, a spending deal brokered in the Senate has House Democrats feeling left out — and grumbling about their counterparts across the Capitol.

This time, the agreement between President Donald Trump and Senate Democratic leaders would spare the vast majority of federal agencies from an extended shutdown — funding most of them through the end of the fiscal year in September while punting Homeland Security funding only through Feb. 13.

But to Democrats up in arms over Trump’s immigration enforcement agenda, that’s still 10 days of DHS funding too many — assuming the deal passes the House as planned Tuesday — leaving them to vent once again about the other chamber.

“There are some Senate Democrats who always signal nervousness and are so reluctant to be strong,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.). “We end up having to answer for what they won’t do, and it can be very frustrating.”

“We are far closer to the people,” said Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-Texas), adding that it’s “critically important that House members be brought in” during negotiations over immigration enforcement constraints considering ICE, Border Patrol and other agencies are deployed in their districts.

The interchamber tensions between Democrats are becoming a regular feature of funding fights in the second Trump term. Lawmakers, strategists and voters alike exploded in anger last March when Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and a handful of colleagues allowed a spending package to move forward amid the Elon Musk-led DOGE assault on federal agencies. In November, tempers again flared when a handful of Senate Democrats joined with Republicans to end a record 43-day shutdown.

This time, the situation is more nuanced. At stake is $1.2 trillion in full-year funding that was negotiated on a bipartisan basis; Democrats generally support the vast majority of the agreement. But the inclusion of the DHS money has been a sore spot — especially after the killing last month of two U.S. citizens by federal agents in Minneapolis.

A version of the DHS bill passed in the House before the Jan. 24 killing of Alex Pretti garnered only seven Democratic votes. Senate Democrats immediately declared a no-go on full-year funding for the department after the incident, and Schumer and Trump negotiated a two-week punt to allow for further talks.

Fewer than half of Senate Democratic Caucus members ultimately ended up voting for the deal, however, and support among House Democrats is considerably more scant.

Asked if House Democrats were sufficiently read in on the Trump-Schumer deal, Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar said “no” but added, “I don’t think that that’s surprising.”

“But I think the split among senators was kind of surprising,” the California lawmaker added. “And so … we’ll see what happens.”

The spending package is headed to the floor Tuesday, where it remains an open question if House Republicans will be able to unite on a key test vote. Late last week — facing dissension in his own ranks over having to pass a bill with only temporary DHS funding — Speaker Mike Johnson entertained using a bipartisan fast-track process.

But members of Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries’ leadership circle were caught unaware — with some downright livid — at Johnson’s confidence that he could pass the bill under that process — which would require a two-thirds-majority vote, meaning at least 70 Democrats would be needed to get it across the line.

Such a move generally requires tacit agreement from minority party leaders to supply the votes. But Republicans at that point hadn’t asked their Democratic counterparts for a more formal private count of how many Democrats might support the measure, according to three people granted anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter.

Jeffries told Johnson just hours later on a private call that Democratic leadership would not commit to delivering the required votes for a fast-track vote, forcing Johnson to gather GOP votes to jump through a procedural hurdle first. Johnson has since accused Democrats of “playing games” with the shutdown-ending package.

Those interparty antics have helped deflect attention from internal Democratic tensions over the Senate-brokered funding deal, with Jeffries playing down any such rift Monday.

“I speak regularly with Leader Schumer, and I speak regularly with Mike Johnson,” he said when asked if House Democrats were properly consulted in the funding package negotiations. “There’s no daylight between House and Senate Democrats on accomplishing the objective, which is dramatic reform of ICE.”

Jeffries opposed the prior package, with full-year DHS funding, but would not say Monday how he intended to vote on the revised bill with the short-term stopgap.

Schumer, for his part, said he spoke with Jeffries during the negotiations that erupted in the Senate following Pretti’s killing. He said after the Senate vote Friday night that Jeffries had agreed on limiting DHS funding to Feb. 13.

“This bill was negotiated by … [Senate Majority LeaderJohn] Thune and me,” Schumer said. “But I’ve talked to Hakeem Jeffries. For instance, we talked about how long a [stopgap] should be, because we wanted to limit it greatly.”

Asked about Schumer’s comment Monday, Jeffries said, “I think what we made clear to the Senate is that the original three-month proposal was completely and totally unacceptable.”

Behind the scenes, Schumer told the White House and congressional Republicans last week that they would need to talk to Jeffries because the bill was going back to the House, according to a person granted anonymity to disclose a private conversation.

If Republicans can get the bill over the procedural hurdle Tuesday, more Democrats are expected to support it than the seven who backed the previous version. But the party remained sharply divided Monday.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, the top Appropriations Committee Democrat, said Monday she would support the bill on the floor, while another panel leader, Massachusetts Rep. Jim McGovern of the Rules Committee, said he would oppose it.

“I will not vote for business as usual while masked agents break into people’s homes without a judicial warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment,” McGovern said.

Others declined to forecast their plans, including members of the Democratic leadership team. Rep. Ted Lieu of California, the caucus vice chair, said he planned to attend Tuesday morning’s caucus meeting before deciding.

Several Democrats said they do not expect party leaders to formally whip votes for or against the funding package, with some acknowledging that it would not be an easy decision for members who support the vast majority of the funding bill and also don’t want to see noncontroversial DHS agencies such as FEMA and TSA shut down.

And blaming the Senate for having to take a tough note, one Democrat noted, is hardly new.

“I’ve been here long enough that people always complain about the other chamber, so that’s always an easy out,” Aguilar said.

Jordain Carney contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Congress

House Republicans eye next week for housing bill vote

Published

on

House leadership is eyeing the week of Feb. 9 for a vote on a bipartisan housing package, according to four people with direct knowledge of the planning.

Senior lawmakers have also been mulling whether to consider the widely supported bill under suspension of House rules, which would expedite passage of the legislation, said three of the people who were granted anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

However, plans for the bill are not locked in and could be subject to change as the House deals with a partial government shutdown.

The Housing in the 21st Century Act, which overwhelmingly advanced through the House Financial Services Committee in December, is part of a push by Congress to pass legislation that could address a growing housing affordability crisis. The bill includes 25 provisions that aim to increase the housing supply, modernize local development and rural housing programs, expand manufactured and affordable housing, protect borrowers and those utilizing federal housing programs, and enhance oversight of housing providers.

House Financial Services Chair French Hill (R-Ark.) said Friday that he’s pushing for the Housing for the 21st Century Act to receive a floor vote expeditiously.

”I hope that that bill can come to the House floor in just a few days. I really am pushing for that, I think it’s the right decision,” Hill said on Bloomberg Radio.

The Senate’s housing bill, the ROAD to Housing Act, passed the upper chamber as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act but may be put to a separate floor vote. If the House is able to pass its own version by a wide margin before the Senate, it could have additional leverage for negotiations with the upper chamber for a final bill. Hill and other House Republicans have said the Senate bill, which received overwhelming bipartisan support in the Senate Banking Committee, has a number of provisions that would not be acceptable among House GOP members.

Continue Reading

Congress

Bill and Hillary Clinton now agree to testify before Congress

Published

on

Bill and Hillary Clinton have agreed to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee as part of the panel’s investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, an Oversight aide said Monday evening.

It’s a remarkable reversal for the former president and secretary of state, who were adamant they would defy committee-issued subpoenas and risk imprisonment by the Trump Justice Department as the House prepared to vote Wednesday to hold them both in contempt of Congress.

After both skipped their scheduled depositions earlier this year, the Oversight Committee voted on a bipartisan basis in January to approve contempt measures for each of them.

Although both have said they had no knowledge of Epstein’s crimes, they have maintained that the subpoenas were not tied to a legitimate legislative purpose, rendering them invalid. They also complained the GOP-led exercise was designed to embarrass and put them in jail.

It is not immediately clear when they will appear and if the House will continue to pursue the contempt votes.

Continue Reading

Trending