Congressman Adam Schiff joins AirTalk today to talk about his close following of former FBI Director James Comey's impending testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee. We'll also dive into Comey's newly released opening statement; debate an upcoming SCOTUS case on law enforcement's access to cell phone records; and more.
Recapping today’s Senate Intelligence hearing with US intel chiefs
As the Russia investigation continues, four intelligence officials were on deck to take questions about the probe.
Here’s a recap of the hearing and a look forward to tomorrow.
Guest:
Steven Dennis, congressional reporter with Bloomberg News who’s at the Senate Press Gallery; he has been following the story; he tweets
Looking ahead to Christopher Wray’s confirmation process as new FBI chief
On the eve of former F.B.I. director Comey’s testimony in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Trump tweeted that he will nominate Christopher Wray, former federal prosecutor and current criminal defense lawyer, as the new F.B.I. director.
After leaving the D.O.J., Wray became Gov. Chris Christie’s personal attorney, representing the governor during the Fort Lee lane closure scandal, nicknamed Bridgegate.
We look to what’s ahead for Wray. What’s the confirmation process? How will he be received in the Senate, and if he becomes director, the F.B.I.?
Guests:
Garrett Graff, journalist and author; former editor at Politico Magazine and the Washingtonian; he wrote a biography on former FBI Director Robert Mueller, "The Threat Matrix: The FBI At War In The Age Of Global Terror” (Back Bay Books, 2012); he tweets
Ron Hosko, former assistant director of the FBI from 2012 to 2014; president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund, a non-profit organization providing assistance to law enforcement officers who are required to defend their official actions in court
Ranking House Intelligence member Adam Schiff looks ahead to Comey hearing
The Russian probe has dominated the headlines and all eyes will be on Capitol Hill when former FBI head James Comey testifies in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee this Thursday.
One person who will be following the hearing closely is California lawmaker Adam Schiff, who is the ranking member of the House Intelligence committee and the Democratic Congressman from the 28th U.S. Congressional District which includes Burbank, Glendale and West Hollywood.
The House Intelligence committee has launched its own investigation into alleged Russian interference into the 2016 presidential election, and potential Russian ties to the Trump campaign. The House committee has issued a number of subpoenas in recent weeks, including one for President Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn.
Larry Mantle spoke with Congressman Schiff on the Comey hearing, and his committee’s own investigation into the matter.
Let’s start first with your response to what we’ve been hearing from the Senatorial Committee that’s the counterpart to yours in the House: NSA Director Mike Rogers and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats said they didn’t perceive themselves as being pressured by the president on the Russia investigations but wouldn’t detail those conversations.
My response is, it’s not really the question or the pressure but rather the question is did the president make this request? Did he attempt to interview in any way? Whether they gave in or felt they were being directed or felt they could resist is a separate matter. So we need to get these answers and I think these answers ought to be given in open public session. I have talked to Director Rogers after his testimony and underscored my view that these questions need to be answered. So, hopefully that will be forthcoming. I think to the degree that the White House may wish to claim executive privilege ... I think it’s been waived and waived in part by these witnesses testifying in part to that very issue of whether they were pressured by the president.
So you think they’ve opened that door. If you were to have members of a presidential administration commenting on private conversations with the president, would that not in some way be disruptive to an administration? How do you pick and choose when a member of an administration talks about private communication and not?
It’s one thing if you’re talking about conversations that deal with policy matters. The president is debating whether to renegotiate a trade agreement or not to or to fulfill something he pledged to do. That’s one thing — it’s another if the discussion involves potential illegality. In those contexts, the executive privilege is always given way and it ought to hear if there were inappropriate conversations that were evidence of a potential attempt to obstruct or interfere in the FBI investigation in any way. That should not be subject to any claim of privilege.
There are supporters of the president who are already running online ads that attack the credibility and the record of James Comey making this testimony. What do you think the impact of that effort to impeach his testimony might mean?
It’s hard to see how it’s going to be successful because it looks so completely self-serving. A lot of people have questions about the judgement James Comey exercised. I was one of them, during the course of the Clinton investigation and his decision to violate Department of Justice policy. But, nobody thinks he’s a liar. No one thinks he’s going to make up conversations with the president that didn’t take place. And if they pick a fight between his credibility and that of the president about what took place in those meetings, they’ll lose that fight. I have to sense that because these actions are taking place and these organizations are mobilizing, they realize that the director is very likely to contradict the president.
Where is the line in your mind between the president talking with the former director about the Russia investigation and engaging in obstruction of justice?
Well, if the president intervened with these directors like Rogers and Coats, if he asked the [former] FBI director also to drop the part of his investigation and then fired him because the director wouldn’t, that crosses a very definite line for me. It’s certainly inappropriate, unethical. Whether it goes beyond that, whether it rises to the level of removal from office, not only does it have to meet sort of a legal test, whether it constitutes obstruction of justice but also very practical test. And that is, would the GOP, which is the majority party in Congress, be able to go back home and make the case to their own constituents that this was not simply an effort to nullify an election by other means, that in fact the president’s conduct was so disqualifying it justified removal from office. That’s a pretty high bar and the standard for impeachment is a pretty high bar, but I think that’s the very practical test and it’s a very different test than what you can prosecute in a criminal case.
We had an exchange in the Senate testimony where Mr. Rod Rosenstein was being pushed by Senator Harris to answer whether he would be willing to sign a letter that he would not fire Robert Mueller at any point and he declined to answer that question. Are you confident that the special counsel to the Russia investigation, Mr. Mueller, is fully independent and that he’ll be able to complete the investigation with the resources necessary?
I am confident of that and I’ve talked to Rod Rosenstein and I don’t think there’s any way he’s going to interfere in Mr. Mueller’s work. If Mr. Mueller says he needs a certain amount of resources or more resources, I don’t think there’s any way he’s going to refuse that request. He knows we’re going to be overseeing all of this. We’re going to make sure that Mr. Mueller gets everything he needs. We have a lot of questions we want answered from Mr. Rosenstein too, which he has deferred right now to Mr. Mueller and this is a slightly differently issue and problem and that is Mr. Mueller will have to look into whether Mr. Rosenstein acted appropriately in drafting that memo to the the president. The president, at least initially, used as a pretext for the firing of James Comey. Ultimately, it will be reported to Rod Rosenstein who is the subject of it, and so that conflict will have to be worked out.
How has your life changed? Here you are in this place where you’re on cable news almost every day, you’ve become a leading face of the Democratic Party.
It certainly has changed, in a lot of ways certainly from the election of this president. Most fundamentally, I’ve never had the concern I do today about the president of the United States, and obviously I’ve been around long enough to serve under both Democrats and Republicans, where I feel the president’s lack of appreciation for the separation of powers, the necessity of a free press has really shaken the republic. I feel a deep obligation, given the position I have, the responsibility I have, to stand as a bulwark in support of our system and democracy.
But your personal life must be very different even than it was a year ago.
Absolutely. I can’t walk down the street without getting a lot of feedback about the work I’m doing. Most of it, thankfully, very positive, some of it not so much. That is definitely a new phenomena. I have experienced that to some degree in my district for many years but now I get that wherever I go in the country and that is something quite different.
Digital rights debate continues as SCOTUS decides new cell phone privacy case
In yet another case weighing the investigative needs of law enforcement against the public’s right to privacy, the Supreme Court of the United States will rule on whether police need to provide evidence of a crime before getting access to location data from cell phone towers that might help them figure out where a suspect is.
Unlike similar Supreme Court cases, this case doesn’t have to do with personal information or correspondence stored on a mobile phone. The high court ruled three years ago that police must show probable cause to get a warrant to download someone’s cell phone data. In this case, Carpenter v. United States, at issue is the degree of proof that a crime has been committed that law enforcement must show a judge in order to get a court order to obtain cell phone records. Current federal law says that police must have reasonable grounds to think the records are pertinent to the ongoing investigation of a crime. Privacy advocates say that the law should require probable cause that a crime was committed before access to cell phone records is granted.
Do you think that using cell phone records to track a criminal suspect’s location violates personal privacy if the police followed the law to obtain them?
Guests:
Rebecca Lonergan, law professor at USC focusing on national security law, and former federal prosecutor for 20 years; she was with the United States Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles from 1991-2007
Nathan Freed Wessler, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project; he tweets
Comey releases opening statement regarding private talks with Trump
WASHINGTON (AP) - Former FBI Director James Comey will say in his opening statement to a congressional hearing that President Donald Trump told him, "I need loyalty. I expect loyalty" during a January dinner, according to documents released a day ahead of his planned testimony.
Comey is set to testify before the Senate Intelligence committee Thursday. His prepared statement was released Wednesday afternoon.
In the statement, Comey said he and Trump dined together privately in January. During the meal, he said Trump asked him if he wanted to remain on as FBI director. Comey said he replied that he wanted to serve out his ten-year term and "was not on anybody's side politically."
Comey said Trump then made his statement about loyalty. Comey replied that he could offer his honesty, and that when Trump said he wanted "honest loyalty," Comey answered, Comey paused and said, "You will get that from me."
Trump abruptly fired Comey last month.
James Comey's Opening Statement by Southern California Public Radio on Scribd
Guests:
Alex Wayne, White House editor for Bloomberg News; he’s been following this story
Garrett Graff, journalist and author; former editor at Politico Magazine and the Washingtonian; he wrote a biography on former FBI Director Robert Mueller, "The Threat Matrix: The FBI At War In The Age Of Global Terror" (Back Bay Books, 2012); he tweets
AirTalk ‘One-on-One’ interview special: Paula Poundstone
If you had the secret to happiness, would you keep it to yourself?
Stand-up comic and panelist on NPR’s “Wait Wait… Don’t Tell Me!” Paula Poundstone has a new book where she shares her own hunt for blissful joy by any means possible. In “The Totally Unscientific Study of the Search for Human Happiness” she’s the guinea pig - trying out everything from driving a Lambo to volunteering.
Is happiness something you can seek out or inflict upon yourself? Is it always elusive or intangible? Poundstone explores it all through her own hilarious lens and survives to tell us the tale!
KPCC In Person is collaborating with Paula Poundstone and NPR on weekly live tapings of her new podcast, called Live from The Poundstone Institute. The first taping starts Tuesday, June 6. Tickets are $10 for the general public, free for KPCC members. [For more information, go to the AirTalk page]
And on Saturday, June 10, KPCC In Person is presenting a solo show with Paula Poundstone at UCLA’s Royce Hall. That event is sold out.
Guest:
Paula Poundstone, comic and author of the new book "The Totally Unscientific Study of the Search for Human Happiness" (Algonquin Books, 2017)