Pod Save America - "The most damning conclusion of all."

Episode Date: March 6, 2017

Trump issues a new immigration ban, and peddles a deranged conspiracy about Obama tapping his phones. Then, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) joins Jon, Jon, and Tommy to talk about his committee's investigation into the contacts between Trump officials and Russia.

Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Jon Lovett. I'm Tommy Vitor. On the pod today, we have the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, California Representative Adam Schiff. Also, he represents us. Our congressman. He is the representative of Dorrington Ave. That's why I was shouting at him at a town hall.

So, you know, like one street over, we would have been Ted Lieu's constituents. But we are Adam's. I checked this out. Honestly, you can't lose. It's a lot of detail for a broadcast. I was very excited about that. Okay, a few things. Positive of the world on Wednesday.

Who we got? We have a former U.S. ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul. We talked a couple weeks back. We talked about the whole scope of the U.S. relationship with Russia. Things Obama did. The record. The history, a little bit of the Trump stuff. But it's a broader look at the United States and Russia and the history there. And he ordered the wiretap on Trump. He ordered the wiretap. Correct.

Correct. Also, don't forget to subscribe to Anna Marie Cox's new podcast with friends like these. It's crushing it. She had a great interview last week with Ira Madison. It was great. About being the black friend. And about being the white friend. And about being the white friend. It's a great interview last week with Ira Madison it was great in the black friend and about being the white friend about being the white friend it's a great interview also we're gonna be on funnier dies livestream again tomorrow night Tuesday night we have special guest comedian Whitney Cummings it's

great good booking love it yeah this morning Trump signed the new we're gonna talk about a few things before we get into the big thing, guys. Which is the wiretapping ordered by Barack Obama. We are going to get into it. Okay, so this morning, with no cameras present, Trump decided to sign his new travel ban. No cameras present, and also, Spicy's not doing an on-camera briefing today either. What a coward. Cowards. To your job. Number one, the old ban is revoked.

So the see you in court tweet is no longer operative. Also released. At least for now. The new travel ban takes effect on March 16th. So Trump's tweet about, he's like, we couldn't wait a week with the other ban because all the bad dudes would plan to come into the country. So it turned out that the pundit reaction to Trump's speech on Tuesday was so good that it reduced the terror threat so that they could delay the EO a week. That's right. And then it's diminished even greater still by his tweets about wiretaps that the EO doesn't need to go in effect for another two weeks.

It's amazing how that happens. A few other quick tidbits on the new ban. Iraq is off the list. The literal home of ISIS. Home of ISIS. The safe haven for ISIS no longer on the list. Apparently Mattis lobbied for that to be off the list. It will not affect green card holders or anyone with a visa. No refugees

for 120 days. We will not accept any refugees from any country. And then here's where it could get bad. The EO directs the Department of Homeland Security to set new standards for how much info other countries have to give the United States when their citizens apply to come here. If they don't meet that standard, whatever the standard may be,

they get placed on a permanent blacklist for all immigration. So that's it. So that's the real, I think that's the story here. This is the story here. So on the last pod, Save the World, I talked to Heather Higginbottom, who's the Deputy Secretary of State, who is really one of the people out front leading this effort to vet refugees. I mean, the time to plug your show is over, but continue.

And one of the things she said was there was not a database they didn't search through. Right. Like if you had told them, hey, here's another place you can find more data, more data is over here. They would have incorporated that and made it part of the vetting process. Meaning other countries. But it doesn't exist. Meaning any data you can find. Got it.

Right. part of the vetting process. Meaning other countries. But it doesn't exist. Meaning any data you can find. Got it. Right? But the problem here is you're asking people coming in from, say, Syria to supply information about where they lived, finances, whatever it may be, from a country that doesn't have any institutions left because they've been bombed

out of existence. Right? So this is, in a sense, a de facto ban if they're not able to get these data. That's my concern. And by the way, that's also part of the reason it's so difficult for Syrian refugees to already get legal status in the United States. Part of the problem is it's very hard to verify these people and they do an incredibly stringent job in vetting them. Yes. These people cross oceans with literally nothing on their person. And they were asking a country that we're essentially, you know, not at war with, but bombing.

Right. A collapsing country like, hey, can you give us this file? It's like, no, we can't. The Russians and ISIS bombed that building. Those files don't exist. The other development that took place between the bans was a report from Department of Homeland Security's intelligence, own intelligence that said there is no national security reason to ban people from these seven countries. So makes sense. security reason to ban people from these seven countries. So... Makes sense. So the president's own Department of Homeland Security doesn't have to not be able to find

a national security reason. And that could matter when this case goes to court, because ACLU, by the way, has said that they will still bring a lawsuit against this executive order because they still believe that it is unconstitutional. By the way, though, it is fascinating how much this has been reduced, right? Like how hard they have lost this fight. Like, first, it was going to be held up in the court and they were going to fight in the courts. Now they've abandoned that. Now they've been restricted to this executive order, which is, again, going to be challenged in the courts.

They're signing it behind closed doors because they're not proud of it. They delayed it because they knew it was a bad story. Like, this went from a thing he campaigned on on a promise he was going to keep to a huge headache they don't know what to do with and that's exactly that's the right the best point all the logical fallacies that john walked through at the top about you know their arguments they've made and why those have been sort of walked back lead you to ask okay so why are we doing this now if the homeland security department is like i'm not sure this will make us safe um seemingly it's only to keep a campaign promise that didn't make sense at the time because it was only done because it pulled well. Right. Right. It's because Steve Bannon doesn't like Muslims.

Well, Steve Bannon is not just opposed to immigration from these places. He's opposed to all immigration, period. And Miller and Bannon have given away the store on this, which is it's not national security just for them. They do not want immigration from Muslim countries because they do not believe those people can assimilate in this country. They believe that the reasons are economic. It's competition with our workers. It is all kinds of other reasons besides national security. So this is still just an opening salvo and part of, by the way, the larger campaign they're waging to increase detention and generally turn immigrants

into a scapegoat. So some of this deportation stuff, too, I want to talk about. There was a story that was floating around yesterday out of Chicago. Army Private First Class Miguel Perez was born in Mexico, grew up in Chicago. He now faces a deportation hearing today because of a nonviolent offense. He's one of thousands of green card veterans facing deportation under Trump. This man served two tours in Afghanistan and was injured in an explosion. He has a traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder. This is one of thousands of veterans who have fought and fought for this country who are now facing deportation.

These are the bad dudes that Trump wants to get out of the country. It's irrational. It's appalling. It's immoral. It's unethical. The lack of empathy involved in any of these rulings is hard to understand. I just hope the public opinion could turn against this in some way. It just makes me so angry going back to last week, too, and that fucking joint session speech. The moment he became president? The moment he became president. Yeah.

Remember the moment he became president, guys? Actually, he was president for a few weeks before when he started these disputation processes, when he started repealing regulations, when he started doing... And he continues to be president in the days after. He's been president the whole fucking time. My favorite moment from your conversation with Dan on Thursday was when you were like,

presidential is a word we use to describe presidents. It's relevant in the campaign, but once you become president, it's just what you are. By the way, it's barely relevant in the campaign, but once you become president, it's just what you are. By the way, it's barely relevant in the campaign. The word, it's hard to really pin down what anyone's talking about, other than it reminds me of something I saw in a movie and it makes me feel good as a

wishy-washy pundit without perspective. Like, yes. I can't. Guess what? He lied to all the news anchors and everyone else that he talked to during that lunch before the joint session speech when he said he might soften his stance on immigration. And everyone fucking bought it again. Like, we buy every fucking possible pivot from Donald Trump. And once again, it was proved to be false because the man lies all the time.

He's a liar. He lies all the time. John, do you think Trump is sorry for lying to those anchors to the point where he might send them some flowers? Oh, well, if he does, if he does send them flowers, he should use pro-flowers. Oh, that's a great idea.

Wait a second. Okay, great. Love pro-flowers. Okay. We have always loved pro flowers. Okay. We have always loved pro flowers and we have always been at war with East Asia. I wish this podcast

was videotaped because if you guys saw Lovett's face when I just said that, you would have lost it. Guys, let's talk about what happened on Saturday. Is it time to talk about what happened on Saturday? I want to get to motivation here, so let's paint a little bit of a backstory. Ashley Parker and some others did an outstanding Washington Post story this morning.

Bobby Costa. And Robert Costa, sorry. It's glorious. About Trump's anger. So Trump is very upset and angry and furious. He can't make the Russia story disappear. He went ballistic when he found out that Sessions recused himself. He can't stop the leaks.

He can't pass any legislation. And he also, this is very important, has really started to hate the unflattering comparisons to Obama's first couple months when Obama passed quite a bit of legislation. When Obama did stuff. When Obama saved the global economy from collapse. When he became, you know. The Karyak was divided. And there's amazing footage of Steve Bannon shouting and pointing through the window of the Oval Office that CNN captured or the pool captured. I didn't see that. It's amazing.

I didn't see that. It's great. Friday was not a great day in the White House. Tough day. So he wakes up Saturday. In a series of tweets sent at 6.30 a.m. on Saturday morning, the President of the United States, Donald Trump, accused his predecessor, Barack Obama, of wiretapping his phones during the election.

He called him a bad, sick guy. He compared it to Watergate and McCarthyism. He then took a shot at Arnold Schwarzenegger for quitting The Apprentice and decided to play 18 holes of golf. People have made this point, which is when you've recently uncovered a Watergate inside your own White House,

how long should you be worried about that before you turn to Apprentice ratings? Like 15 minutes? It was basically like 15 minutes. That's right. So the question is, where did the outburst come from? His father wasn't very nice to him.

And he also has a deep kind of well of kind of a hole in his heart he can't fill. John, I assume it was the PDB, the President's Daily Brief, which is where he gets the most sensitive intelligence in the world at any time based on his request. Now, he was playing Angry Birds during that. Sadly, Tommy, that was not the PDB. Was it a breaking news alert from any kind of journalistic institution? It was not. Not the New York Times? Not CNN?

Was it any kind of investigative reporting that had just been unearthed? It was not. Apparently, someone on his staff handed him a Breitbart story from Friday, which summarized a rant by right-wing radio talk show host Mark Levine, who said that the Obama administration and the intelligence agencies have been out to get for Trump for a long time and are planning a coup. That is where this came from. Should have known.

Should have guessed that. So, Obama's office then puts out a statement denying that Obama or any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen and said that it was the policy of the Obama administration and just about every administration in modern history to never interfere with any independent investigation conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation or the Department of Justice. Ben Rhodes, I thought, had a really great response to this, which he said on Twitter, which is, actually, we have laws in place to prevent this, specifically to stop people like you from spying on citizens. Are you talking about the same Ben Rhodes who disguised himself as a cable guy and actually installed the bugs in Trump Tower? He put on a mustache and a pair of overalls, black hat, crawled under.

He and Terry Zuplat of the White House Speech Writing Operation, two of them, those duo. Carter Page, try my burner. Try my burner phone and see if this one works. So let's break this down. Tommy, how does surveillance actually work? How would this happen if this was true? So some key points here, because we're talking about the wiretapping, allegedly, of an American citizen. So one, the president cannot legally about the wiretapping, allegedly, of an American citizen. So, one, the president cannot legally order the wiretapping of an American citizen. Another important fact is Trump has no evidence to back up this claim except for the Breitbart article, which we know because his staff was unable to confirm it after the fact. Right.

We also know that Comey asked DOJ to declare the statement false and Jim Clapper denied this. So just some facts to get those out of the way. That is a huge one because we went through, again, we went through like a 48 hour period where there was all kinds of fucking conjecture. And like, look, I knew that it came from the Breitbart article, but even after Obama's statement, that didn't mean that there was no

surveillance because Obama just wouldn't know because he's not supposed to do that, right? But then we got confirmation last night that James Comey, the FBI, said that it's bullshit. And I feel like this is a bit like putting together a complicated math proof. You're like, you need all these different people to rule it out and be very emphatic. Like, wait, did you not know about it? And would you know about it if it were true? And they are so,

like, it is so rare to see an intelligence official on television being definitive. And Clapper was like, no, I would know and no. We were talking about this on the way here. These stories were the worst stories to deal with at the White House when I was the NSC spokesman, because when you're dealing with intelligence matters, there's always shades of gray. There's always confusing exceptions. You're always trying to get to the bottom of something you can't really talk about. But you're right. A statement that definitive from Comey and Clapper is remarkable. But just a little a little background here.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was passed right after Watergate, when Nixon was illegally surveilling political opponents and others. It created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance've all seen the wire. That's where you go to a federal judge with evidence and say, this person committed a serious crime. I need to monitor their comms. The other is a national security wire tap or FISA order, which requires a federal judge on the foreign intelligence surveillance court to believe that the person is an agent of a foreign power. Or, you know, it's seemingly there might be some, there's an effort to collect a record relative to a foreign entity, like a bank, and maybe that's what's causing the confusion here. So no surveillance is approved by the executive branch. Obama-

It is only approved by the judicial branch, correct? Obama can't say, let's surveil that guy. Right. Someone at DOJ goes to a judge. Right, yeah, I was going to say, so it's not even like, well, Obama's Justice Department did it. Obama's Justice Department can go to a judge and ask and say, we have substantial evidence to warrant surveillance. And then the judge would have to say yes. Right.

So if a judge did approve surveillance, whether it was a FISA judge or an article or a regular judge, right, that would mean that there was substantial evidence of Trump or one of Trump's associates doing something bad. Doing something bad. Yes. Now, where it gets a little confusing and where people are, I think, understandably confused, they're saying, well, what about General Flynn? We all know his conversation with the Russian ambassador was picked up. That was, according to news reports, I don't have firsthand knowledge of this, because the NSA was monitoring the communications routinely of the Russian ambassador. And Flynn's conversations were picked up in the process of that surveillance and were deemed relevant. His name was associated with it. And there's a process for when Americans are captured in the routine spying on foreign nationals. Right. There are procedures called minimization where you are essentially redacting

or disguising the names of known U.S. citizens involved and those names are only brought out if it's sort of relevant to the case or the intelligence itself. And once again, I just want to flag that we're not only more entertaining but just much more informative than regular news. I just want to put a pin on it when it happens.

Love it. We don't get fat checks. Trump's president. You can compliment yourselves. Okay, so trying to comb through, which is a bullshit process anyway, trying to comb through the origins of the Breitbart story and the Mark Levine rant and stuff like that, Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post did a full fact-check on this whole thing. Basically, what it comes down to, he said, there's only one article in one story.

I think it's the Heat Street blog. Even that, whatever problems you may have with that. Green Assault, let's say. Right, that was the only one that reported that there was a FISA court order possibly to surveil a computer server, possibly in Philadelphia. Or not even surveil, to get records related to their connections to a Russian bank. And that claim has not been confirmed by a U.S. news organization, any. And this, that claim has not been confirmed by a U.S. news organization, any. And no article, nowhere, no story, nothing, says that Obama requested the order or that it resulted in the tapping of Trump's phone lines.

It is completely false. It's made up. Made up. It is a conspiracy theory. So, I was saying this on the way over, like, it is one thing to, you almost expect this from Donald Trump. Love it, you brought this up, I think, yesterday, I don't know if it was on twitter or what but like there this is no like yeah yes this is trump is not losing it he's not deranged he's not going crazy he's not falling apart he's exactly the same he is just he is he is the same person he was he is doing what he does he is taking in whatever salves his ego and

tweeting about it online. What has changed is his surroundings. And he's the commander in chief of the United States. And he is surrounded by an apparatus in the government and conservative press and conservatives in Congress who now feel they need to carry his water. What is concerning to me is that rather than go to the his national security advisor, the head of the CIA, anyone in the intelligence community to try to understand what actually happened, he's listening to extremist truffle pig slash chief strategist Steve Bannon, who's rooting around in the NSC doing God knows what and filling his head with crazy conspiracy theories about how the deep state is targeting him. The thing that actually scares me, and a few people have pointed this out, that when we're in real trouble is when he actually figures out that he's president of the United States and has a lot of power and a lot of access and can find things out without tweeting about it first. Right. But like one of the things that's driving me crazy about this whole conversation is like, is that logic and reason is just completely absent. So I just wanted to ask you guys a couple of

rhetorical questions, if you don't mind. Do you think Obama would end his presidency by illegally wiretapping a total buffoon that everyone thought was going to lose the election in a landslide? Does that make sense? It totally makes sense. Doesn't sound like the Obama I know. This is what I said yesterday. It's like, this was Obama's plan all along. It's like, I'm going to wiretap our political opposition. I'm going to gather the information.

I will say nothing. I will let him win. And then I will run off into the sunset. That is the plan. And then when I'm paragliding, I'll leak it. Once I'm safely on vacation with Richard Branson, that is the time. When I'm 50 feet up above a speedboat looking down at a beautiful vista, I'll click send. I'll send this whole bullshit like, Obama's Justice Department investigated his political opponent.

Obama's Justice Department investigated Hillary Clinton. Right. Obama's Justice Department. What are you fucking talking about? Right. Like, yes, it is. What? That is...

Because... I can't. I was so angry this weekend. I was so angry. Because here's why I'm angry. I'm not... Donald Trump, you expect this. This is where I start.

Yeah. And so, he is a loony person. He's a loony old man who has conspiracy theories. That's fine. But now when he issues a conspiracy theory, when he has something like this, his White House backs him up. The fucking entire Republican Party, except for various members of Congress who... There are some Republicans in Congress who are like, I haven't seen any of this evidence. So give them credit.

A couple birthday candles in the dark. A couple birthday candles in the dark. A couple birthday candles in the dark. Is that an expression? They're just smaller than candles. They're not real candles in the dark, but they're like birthday candles in the dark. The entire conservative media establishment is backing him up now. And it's not just lunatics like Sean Hannity who were tweeting at all of us all weekend, what did Obama know and when did he know it?

Ben Rhodes, have you gotten a lawyer? ben rhodes have you gotten a lawyer valerie jarrett have you gotten a lawyer john february you're not talking back to me because a lawyer is coming up with your talking points like you are such a fucking moron like you have no idea what you're talking about did you get those talking points i did get the talking point another rhetorical question given all that's leaked so far do we think if donald trump himself is subject to wiretapping illegal or not, that it wouldn't have leaked out? I mean, the Washington Post has 17 sources on any given story. There was actually one leak that I actually wanted to talk about because it was about our friend Reince Priebus. And it was a leak about Priebus after a meeting in the Oval about leaks, trying to get people to deny leaks, which then leaked because it was about people having a problem with the way things are being leaked.

It was a record. It was a record in that story. It was a leak about a leak about a leak about a leak. Part of what's so frustrating about this is after all the preening about Hillary Clinton and the need to investigate her and all the wrongdoing, there's an underlying suggestion here that if the FBI spots criminal activity or collusion with a foreign government, that they should not investigate because it somehow was connected to Donald Trump and we were in the midst of a campaign. That was the other thing. Literally putting politics before law enforcement or national security. Well, so I,

right after the Obama statement came out, there were a lot of reports. People just said Obama denied that there was any wiretapping whatsoever. So I tweeted, like, I'd be careful reporting that because all that said is that Obama didn't order it or know about it because that's not his job, you know. And all these, since then, every right winger and Fox News, everyone else has been retweeting my tweet. And they're like, Obama's former, former Obama administration official says that there could have been wiretapping. Like, gotcha. John Thibodeau did not deny it. Now, did you know about that from L.A.? First of all, I don't know shit.

I've been gone since 2013. And when I was there, I wouldn't have known shit either. Also, by the way, let's all keep in mind, what is this all about? The fact that there were insane and unnecessary contacts over and over again between between russian officials and the trump campaign which they denied and lied about for months and they have been the most strangely pro-russia administration we've had in decades and that is the heart of this which has not changed when trump makes something up on twitter on a fucking saturday because it just goes down to this either trump completely made it up and it's another conspiracy theory and he lied to the

american people or um there has been surveillance, and because there was surveillance, that means that there was sufficient evidence. Right. Now, if there was surveillance, I just want to step back for a second and help people understand how sensitive FISA surveillance or anything to do with American citizens is. That is some of the most protected information that happens in government. It is shared where relevant. But like the fact, despicable cleanup effort by Sean Spicer and his press minions over the weekend. Sean, buddy, you do not get a pass because you're a team player.

I know Nicole Wallace said on the pod on Thursday that he's a nice guy. And we hear this all the time about Sean Spicer. He's such a nice guy. He's just doing an act. Sean, this is who you are now. You are the guy doing this. You're not the guy putting on a show. You will go down for your participation in this evil fucking administration and you shouldn't pretend otherwise. Sean, this is who you are now. You are the guy doing this. You're not the guy putting on a show.

You will go down for your participation in this evil fucking administration, and you shouldn't pretend otherwise. It is very interesting to me that they are putting out Sarah Huckabee Sanders on shows. Their deputy press secretary. Let's just be clear. You put out the deputy press secretary in the last six months of administration to get that person some reps so they can get a cooler job when it's all done. Okay? That's not your go-to player in month two. Building your Twitter following. They are putting her out there

because everyone who's senior does not want to be on the record. They saw what happened to Kellyanne Conway. They saw what's happened to Sean. Speaking of Kellyanne. Everyone gets shattered. She's back. Kellyanne is back. This morning she was on Fox & Friends

and she's like, oh, well, the president said that because he has access to intelligence that you don't. Going on Fox and Friends isn't a real interview, though. I mean, you might as well just be by your mom at an event. She changed. So the White House over the weekend confirmed that it was news reports that led to the president tweeting that. But Kellyanne Conway this morning was like, oh, just kidding.

It was actually intelligence. Oh, really? Well, she's just a liar. She's just a liar. So the question intelligence. Oh, really? Well, she's just a... Well, she's a liar, too. She's just a liar. So, the question is, what happens next? The White House is now calling for Congress to investigate the FBI's role in all this, which is also somewhat hilarious, because basically, the executive branch is calling on Congress to investigate the executive branch. Right, right.

Donald Trump, basically, like, Donald Trump can find out all of this information himself. Right. Like, he doesn't need Congress to investigate himself. But if they do investigate and they do find that there was surveillance, perhaps they'll also uncover the evidence that led to the surveillance, which would be some kind of contacts that were nefarious between Russians and Trump. Basically, there's nothing Congress could uncover from someone inside the executive branch that whatever they tell Congress, they couldn't also tell the president. Yeah. Is that true?

I don't know. I mean, it's so ridiculous. It's so hard to figure out what's true anymore. And then the way Trump's aides cheer him up is by taking him out to dinner to talk about banning Muslims and refugees from the country. Talk about that report. In the Washington Post story, it was like he was so upset. He was in a rage.

And then he was at Mar-a-Lago for dinner and they laid out the plans for the travel ban. Yeah, they laid out the travel ban. And that cheered him up. So then he woke up happy the way he seemingly changed the narrative to being about attacking Obama for something he never did. And then he was upset again because surrogates on the Sunday shows didn't defend him because he's making it up and he's crazy. They were particularly mad at little Marco who bummed a ride down to Florida on. And so Marco Rubio gets a ride with Trump and he walks behind Trump with his sad, tired face because his insides are showing on his outsides. And then he's asked about this and he just hems and haws and he has a talking point, which I think he's very proud of, which is, I will participate in a witch hunt, but I also won't participate in a cover-up. And that's why I'm not going to answer any of your questions. And so he won't call for a special prosecutor. He wants

the Intelligence Committee to do its work, but he wants to know that the Intelligence Committee is not a law enforcement body, which is why they're not going to do blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I'm not going to say anything. I'm not going to criticize Trump. But even that wasn't defending Trump enough for Trump. Marco, you can't win for losing. Just say what's on your mind. You can't stand Trump. You wish you weren't president. You don't believe him. You think he's a liar. You think he's crazy. You don't trust him. So I don't think that Marco Rubio is going to get another ride on Air Force One after that. And so I think for an order for him to get from place to place, he might have to use Lyft. Oh, it's a good idea for Marco. So I do. I mean, I started making the point about how

it's not just Trump that's a problem. It's the White House's response to this. But I will not be surprised in a couple weeks from now if 40% of Americans believe that Barack Obama had Donald Trump wiretapped. And that's not just because 40% of Americans hang on every word Donald Trump says. There is an entire conservative media establishment from lunatics like Breitbart and Mark Levine to even, you know, even places like the National Review yesterday was doing the whole, oh, well, Obama's Justice Department has been, you know, digging around in Trump and they have it out to get him, even though they also investigated Hillary Clinton. But no, no, no, it's politically motivated and the deep state hates him and they're leaking and blah, blah, blah.

And so Trump, the line's going to be, Trump may not have been exactly right, but he did have a point that Obama administration holdovers are out to get Trump. And and by the way, like you don't even need to get deep into the conservative media. You can check out the kind of the pundits who are going to make it really hard. Look, this is a hard issue to understand. We have we spent just like half an hour trying to get through it. And it is tough. Like, I don't feel like I have.

I don't think I could go through recount what we just went through and sort of say in a simple way. This is a complicated story, and people are frustrated, and they don't trust what they're getting. And so no one knows. No one can follow the news. It is impossible to keep up with what's happening. And Trump has paid no cost for his previous lives. The size of his inauguration. The claim that 3 million plus people voted illegally.

That Ted Cruz's dad killed JFK. That Obama was the founder of ISIS. That Obama wasn't born in America. This is what's, what's scary now is credibility really matters for a president, right? You, we, he will go to a country at some point. There was an unbelievable story about North Korea's nuclear program in the New York times over the weekend. Terrifying stuff.

That is one of the great challenges he faces as president. Apparently, I don't know this, but apparently, reportedly, Obama told him this is one of the things he briefed him on in their 90-minute meeting in the Oval. That's where you bring up your top, top priorities. He's not focused on these things. Meeting seems so long ago. He has no credibility to go to the United Nations and say, this is what I know about their nuclear program.

This is what I know about their ICBM program. Our president, who has been a proven liar now, has no credibility in the eyes of the With anybody. With anybody. program our president who's been a proven liar now has no credibility in the eyes with anybody with anybody um so as we always try to do here what can we do what's one thing we can do so sessions recused himself from any um any role in this investigation between russian russian interference and possible collusion with the trump campaign um so that it goes to the deputy attorney general right currently the deputy acting attorney general is an obama administration hold holdover um there is a confirmation hearing this week

for trump's pick for deputy attorney general some democrats have said that they will try to use every tool possible i saw richard blumenthal say this. Good for him. Senator from Connecticut. I believe former Attorney General of Connecticut. Is that right? Don't pop quiz me. I think that's right. Yeah. Good for you.

He said that he'll use every tool at his disposal to hold up this confirmation hearing until the Trump administration agrees to appoint a special prosecutor to go through this. There was also a CNN poll this morning that said two-thirds of Americans, including 43% of Republicans, believe that it should not be Congress that does all this investigation, but a special prosecutor. We can talk to Representative Schiff about this when he comes on. But I think that's one thing to demand that we get... I mean, like you said, I love it. All this is confusing. It's hard to sort through, and it's hard to trust a lot of different people, a lot of different actors in this. You appoint an independent prosecutor, and you let them take care of all this. So I've seen conflicting reports about whether the current deputy can appoint a special prosecutor right now from inside the Justice Department because Sessions has recused himself. And I wonder if that's not something, have you guys seen that? Do you have any thoughts about that,

of whether we should be pressuring the current deputy, who is an Obama appointee, but by all counts, a kind of bipartisan straight shooter respected on both sides um whether or not we could ask that whether we should be pressuring that person to appoint the special prosecutor now be given that whoever comes next it's a lot easier to not appoint one than it is to fire one i don't know i don't know i don't know if that's true or not i mean i would just say they can do it they should i would just say i don't know why we're not talking about it the decision to name a special prosecutor is not something i think anyone takes lightly it's a big deal those investigations tend to creep into not just the the crime itself but the cover but i think it's hard to argue in any

rational way that the administration by by their botched response to this and the number of times they've been proven to be lying or dishonest or misleading or shading the facts haven't earned that. Right. And the other thing, too, is we also like this is really important. So some people like this is not a distraction from health care. This is not a distraction from deregulation. This is really important. But they're writing that health care of time specifically because that if they don't get this bill out of the House fast enough, their members will go home for a two-week recess and get accosted about it.

Resistance recess. April 18th, also the day of the special election in the Georgia 6th. And that big tax rally is coming up too, right? Isn't there a huge rally on tax day? I think so. Release your taxes, Donald Trump. We got lots. Remember that? That feels like a distant memory. That's another one, by the way.

It's the keys to the kingdom, though. If President Obama wanted to screw over Donald Trump, he could have released his tax returns because President Obama had the power to get anyone's tax returns. Which, by the way, we should not talk about because Trump will find out. Right. He's not, well, it would have to appear in a Breitbart story. Okay. When we come back, we will have the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam Schiff.

This is Pod Save America. Stick around. There's more great show coming your way. With us on the pod today, we have the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam Schiff. Representative Schiff, welcome to the program. Thank you. It's great to be with you. It's great to have you here. Also, you represent the three co-hosts today. We're in your district. I don't want to hijack this interview, but it's been windy and a tree did fall on my block. And I don't know if you can get me the right people to get that removed. I will get right on that the moment we get off the line.

get that removed? I will get right on that the moment we get off the line. So lots to talk about from this weekend, but I want to start with the investigation into Russian interference and potential contacts between Russian officials and Trump campaign officials. So you said last week that FBI Director Comey refused to answer questions from some members of your committee that you believe were germane to the investigation. What's your plan to get those answers? How concerned are you about this? I'm very concerned about it. There are a couple kinds of briefings we get from the director. One is a quarterly counterintelligence briefing. And the other, the briefings that we're getting in connection with our investigation of Russian interference in our election and the possibility of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. And we haven't gotten the information that we

need to do our jobs. We had a number of members, myself included, ask the director questions that were pertinent to our investigation. And it's not that we didn't like the answers. It's just that the answer was, I'm not going to answer that question. Ultimately, that can't persist if we're going to do our job. And I would hope that he will go back to the department, come back to the committee, or come back to the Gang of Eight with a different answer. Or we'll have to inform the American people that we can't do this investigation as we should. And we'll have to subpoena the director or anyone else that we need to get information from. But I hope that kind of step won't be necessary.

Well, so on Friday night, Senator Chris Coons from Delaware mentioned that the FBI has transcripts that would provide helpful insights into whether or not Russian officials were cooperating or colluding with the Trump campaign at the highest levels. Do you believe those transcripts exist, and how do you get them? Well, I can't comment on any of the specifics about what transcripts or conversations or that may or may not exist between Russian officials or even between Russians talking to other Russians. That's not something I can go into. But I can say that this is all, I think, very pertinent to our investigation. We ought to be doing this thoroughly and follow the evidence wherever it leads. And certainly we would want to look at any intercepts if they exist and to the degree they shed any light on these issues. Congressman, if you look at the New Yorker today, there's a big

story about a Trump hotel in Azerbaijan that's tied to a corrupt political family with ties to the IRGC, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. There's a debate whether this might be a violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. So my question is, you read things like that, and then you think logically about Russia. And it seems unlikely that Trump was cutting deals with Putin directly, and far more likely that he was doing business with his associates or some corrupt oligarch. And I guess my question is, can the congressional investigation encompass his real estate empire and what they're doing overseas with Russian oligarchs or businessmen that might be tied to Putin? I certainly think that the president's

financial interests could be within the scope of our jurisdiction if it's one of the ways that the Russians were exerting influence over Trump or his associates. And of course, that was one of the allegations in that dossier that that allegedly former British spy compiled that suggested that the Russians had been working for years to essentially get their tentacles around Donald Trump. Interestingly, in the president's tweets on the subject, to the degree you can rely on anything like that, he doesn't talk about Russians' investment in him, only his investment in Russia. But the real committee that ought to be looking at this is the one chaired by Jason Chaffetz, and that is government reform. And

it's quite clear for Mr. Chaffetz, he has a new and quite different view of his investigative responsibilities in this administration than he had with the last. It seems as though he's a blubbering coward. I don't know. That's my characterization. I know you couldn't agree with that. Well, you know, you could almost feel sympathy for him when he had to appear this morning to defend Donald Trump's spurious claims that President Obama had bugged his phones at Trump Tower. It was even difficult for him to, I guess, toe the Trump line with much of a straight face. Especially when you know that Trump is watching. Yes, that is true.

So your counterpart on the Intel committee, Representative Devin Nunes, said that he's seen no evidence of improper communications between Trump and Russia, and he's been told by senior Intel folks that, quote, there's nothing there. Do you agree with this characterization? Do you think that was appropriate?

I don't agree with the characterization, and it's far too early, in my view, to draw any conclusion about what the evidence will show in terms of potential Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. We just don't know yet. The first witness we had was the director, and the director refused to answer a lot of our questions. We are still in the process of looking at some of the documents, and the documents we're examining right now are the documents that underlie the public report the intelligence community put out about the Russian hacking and dumping and Russian media campaign. So those documents don't as yet even go to this basket of issues surrounding potential collusion. So it's way too early to be reaching any conclusions. And

I don't think any of the members of our committee or the Senate committee ought to be speculating about what our ultimate conclusion will be. So this is obviously an incredibly complicated and vast story. A lot of the information is classified. It's really hard for people who have access to classified information to keep up with what's going on, let alone the vast, vast majority of us who don't. I think people are really scared and they're worried, right, that their president is compromised, that he can't be trusted, that there's been this collusion, that it's affecting our government right now. And I know that this investigation would take time and that you don't have all the answers. But what do you say to them

right now that say, like, they're worried, they're worried that they can't trust this president with classified information. There are all these sort of harrowing reports about him not having access to information. How do you reassure people or do you not reassure people? Well, I'm not sure they can reassure people. And there are two things that I would mention. The first is with respect to the president, that when he tweets out these completely baseless and wild allegations against his predecessor, it diminishes us in the eyes of the rest of the world. The suggestion by one president that he was bugged by the prior president, and of course people have quite rightly pointed out that would have to mean that

a federal judge found probable cause to believe that Trump or his aides were engaged in crime, or that a FISA court found that Trump and his aides were agents of foreign power. The only other explanations, of course, for his statements are he's trying to distract. Or perhaps even the most disturbing conclusion would be he simply can't tell fact from fiction. And from a presidential and constitutional perspective, he doesn't know right from wrong. And that would be the most damning conclusion of all. The other thing I would mention is that people really need to keep the broader context in mind. And the broader context is this. We're in a global war

of ideas with Russia. It's now not communism versus capitalism, but authoritarianism versus democracy. And the autocrats are on the rise, and we need to stand up and meet this challenge. And I think there's a profound concern around the world and now at home that we don't have a president who's up to that challenge. Do you believe Donald Trump can be trusted with classified information? Well, you know, it's hard to know what he can be trusted with when he is willing to say something as incendiary as he just did about his former, the former president. I would hope that we could trust him not to blurt out information. I would certainly hope we could

trust him that in any discussions that he authorizes his staff to have with the Russians, that he would never betray any sources of information. I think our intelligence agencies are going to be very protective of their sources, probably more protective than ever when they involve Russia, because there are profound concerns about where this president is coming from. Congressman, when you talk to colleagues on the House floor or wherever you talk to them, do you think that Republicans will be able to find the courage to stand up to Donald Trump when his approval rating is higher than Bush or Reagan's would at this point in time?

I mean, is politics trumping national security and common sense here? Well, absolutely. And I think for a lot of the GOP members, you know, they know that the president is a loose cannon. They know the wheels are likely to come off the wagon. But right now there's still things they want from this president and they don't want to jeopardize them. So every week on the House floor, we take up a new giveaway to some Republican member. And if they're from a mining district, maybe it repeals the surface mining regulations. If they're from a grazing district, it repeals the grazing regulations. They all want to get something before the wheels come off the wagon.

And a lot of these members, too, are worried about the Trump backers at home in their district. They recognize that what the president said during the campaign proved all too true, that those who crossed him would pay a price with his supporters. And there are only a few like John McCain that have had the spine to stand up to this guy. Congressman, how concerned are you about the volume and sensitivity of the leaks that are coming out about Donald Trump, about FISA, about our intelligence community generally? Well, I didn't like it when there were numerous leaks during the Clinton investigation. I don't approve of leaks now, but I think people need to distinguish between a couple different kinds of leaks. There are the leaks that really damage national security, where they're revealing of sources and methods of information, and we've

certainly had some of those in the past. But a lot of the leaks we're talking about now are leaks that are merely embarrassing to the president or that reveal some kind of wrongdoing by the president. And, of course, the best example was the leak that revealed that Mike Flynn had conversations with a Russian ambassador and lied about it. And what's so interesting about that and disturbing about that is when the president learned that Mike Flynn had lied and caused the vice president to mislead the whole country, he was okay with that. that and disturbing about that is when the president learned that mike flynn had lied and cause the vice president to mislead the whole country he was ok with that for weeks he did nothing and the only thing that forced them to fire flynn

was when it became public and i think this is why he's so mad at the press because he didn't want to fire flynn because line of the country is ok in his book and the real sin was getting caught and having it publicly exposed. And that's, I think, a big part of the reason why he views the press as the enemy, not of the people, but of his own personal enemy. So one possible explanation for the many, many contacts that have been revealed between Trump campaign officials and Russian officials could

be collusion, some kind of collusion with regard to the Russian interference in our election. What are the other possible explanations for all of these contacts? This is what I've been trying to figure out. Like, I don't know what the most innocent explanation is, but we know the contacts have existed and existed in a large volume during the campaign, not just in the transition period. Maybe they're planning a surprise party that hasn't happened yet. But what else are you guys looking into on the committee in terms of these contacts? Well, you know, I think the explanations for not only the contacts, but the Russians' seemingly inexplicable affinity for Putin and his inability to criticize him in any way,

you know, they range from the very benign, or maybe not very benign, but from the benign to the far less than benign. And probably the most benign explanation is he truly thinks he can have some kind of a different relationship with the Russians and with Putin. A somewhat less benign explanation is that he realizes he can't, but after having placed so much of his credibility on the line with this new policy, there's nothing now the Russians can't do that he would call them on. And of course, the even less benign explanations involve there being some form of collusion,

and probably the least benign, that the Russians have something on this president that he is desperately afraid they might reveal uh... and i would hope that our investigation of its truly objective will not prejudge which of those explanations is true but do our best to find out then lay those facts before the american people do you think we need an independent prosecutor at some point uh... i do and i you know i didn't reach that conclusion right away but when some of the facts reached the point and i think uh... will be the the flint is a

good example where the justice department needs to make a decision uh... is there a prosecutable fence here uh... the attorney general i don't think can do that and the partial nature of his recusal means that uh... since the flint with the ambassador took place after the campaign, presumably Sessions would be making that decision. Now, I don't think he should, and I don't think people have any confidence in that judgment

if it's his judgment. So I do think we are already at the point where we ought to have an independent prosecutor. Representative Schiff, we appreciate you stopping by and answering our questions, and best of luck on the continued investigation. Well, thanks a lot. You all do a great job, and I just want to commend you on your work. Thank you so much, and you too. We'll have to have you back in lighter times. It would be nice to talk about something light for a change. Yeah, what a slog. Like North Korea nuclear weapons or something like that.

Take care, Representative. Thanks. That's all we have for today. Thank you to Congressman Schiff for coming on the pod. And we'll see you again. Thanks, guys. Love it. You have anything?

A parting shot? Love it? I just think we should just take a second and just recognize that this is fucking crazy. And we are still in the middle of something crazy. Somehow it manages to get worse because maybe we're just not imaginative enough. Do you think it's a national crisis? Yeah, we're in a national crisis, Tommy. I'll say it on Twitter and I'll say it again here.

Alright, this is a crisis. Fortunately, we're going to get through it together here on Pod Save America. One pod at a time. Bye, guys. Bye. Bye.