You haven't even started talking
and you've got a standing ovation. No, I feel like we should wrap it up here. We're going to work. Well, hello everyone,
and welcome to today's live in person program here
at the Commonwealth Club of California. I'm Marisa Lagos. I am politics correspondent
for KQED Public Media. And I'm really excited
to be here in person with the congressman and with you all. It's it's been a long time. So Congressman Adam Schiff represents
California's 28th District. He is chair of the House
Intelligence Committee and, as you know, author of the new book
Midnight in Washington How We Almost Lost Our Democracy
and Still Could. Prior to the 2016 election,
Congressman Schiff had been sounding the alarm over the threat posed
by a global resurgence of autocracy. And during the Trump presidency,
he was one of the most prominent members of Congress advocating for oversight
and accountability of the administration and was the lead manager of the former
president's first impeachment. Midnight in Washington details how is he
led the probe into Trump's abuses of presidential power? He came to the conclusion that the biggest
threat to democracy came from within. Arguing that Trump's presidency
has so weakened our institutions and compromised the Republican Party that
the danger will remain for years to come. We've got a lot to cover in the next hour,
and we do want your questions so you can fill out question cards
if you're here in the room. You can also put questions
in the text chat on YouTube. If you were watching this online and we will try to get to
as many of them as we can. In the meantime,
thank you, congressman, for being here. Well, thank you for being here, and it is so wonderful
to see people in three dimensions. Again, those watching virtually. I hope we get a chance
to see each other in person. And I just want to acknowledge my wife,
Eve, who I think Is this there she is. We are Adam and Eve. Yes. I wanted to point that out if you did. But thank you again for moderating and thank you
to the Commonwealth club for having us. Yeah, it's wonderful to be here. And I was telling congresswoman
the last time I saw him was at midnight in Washington in 2019 in the capital. We finally caught him for an interview
as he was going between depositions preparing for that impeachment trial. I was thinking we would open where you open the book,
which is with the events of January sixth you as well as all the members
of Congress, were on the floor that day. And I think your experience
really spells out sort of the visceral ness of the threat
that the rest of the book lays out. Can you just talk a little bit
about your experience on that day and what it was like? Sure. About six months
before Election Day, I was talking with the speaker
about how we needed to pull together a small group to try to anticipate
all the things that might go wrong after the election. What happens if the Electoral
College is tied? What happens if one state refuses to
certify a slate of electors or sends two? And she thought that was very worthwhile. And so there were four of us who were
charged with preparing for that day. Of course, of the thousand contingencies
we planned for, the one that happened was not one we expected,
although a lot of the other ones did as well. Yes. You know, astonishingly, some of our worst
nightmares did come true. But but the worst, of course,
was when we didn't imagine. But as a result, I was on the House floor
for the whole time and and actually all the House members
were not there because of the pandemic. Only 40 members of the House
were allowed to be on the floor, others who were planning to speak
that they were in the gallery. And as it turned out,
they were the most exposed, and I first got an inclination
that something was wrong. When I looked up
and the speaker was not in her chair, it had been our plan and expectation that she was going to preside
through the whole day as long as it took. And then I saw two Capitol Police
rush onto the floor and grabbed Steny Hoyer, our number two,
and rushed him off the floor so quickly . I remember thinking to myself that
I'd never seen Steny move that quickly. And he doesn't let me tell you this,
but I went up to Jim McGovern, who was presiding in the chair
after the speaker was whisked away. And I said, Thank God, we finally have
some disposable in the speaker's chair. Oh, sure, you appreciated that. Which I thought was funnier than he did. But but actually, Jim stayed on the floor to the very end and courageously so. But but I really wasn't aware of the magnitude of what was happening
outside the chamber until police officers kept coming onto the floor and telling us, You need to get out gas masks
and eventually you need to get out. And I still hung back. There was kind of a
a scrum at the door to get out. And and I had a couple Republicans come up to me and say,
you can't let them see you. I know these people.
I can talk to these people. You're in a whole different situation.
You can't let them see you. And my first impulse was to be
kind of moved that they were right. I mean, worried about me. Yeah, what was the intention there, do you
think? Well, I think it was genuine. I think they felt that
I would be very much a target of these insurrectionists. And so my first impression
was to to think, Wow, that's nice. They're worried about my safety. But that feeling soon gave way to another because I realized
that if the Republican members hadn't been lying about the election , then none of us would have to have been
worried about our safety. And and as the days went on after that day and I saw more and more footage of people
attacking the police, I think for many of us in Congress,
it became more traumatic over time. And part of the feeling I was left with was really just anger at the people inside the chamber,
the insurrectionists in suits and ties. My colleagues, because the people attacking the Capitol
that day believe the big lie. But the people I served with knew it was a lie,
and we're still content to push it, even after the there was
literally blood on the ground and we returned to the chamber
to finish that, that that transfer of power. They still were trying
to overturn the election and it's just to me, unforgivable. We don't have to dwell on it,
but I did notice that you, you know, you all went to what was supposed to be
an undisclosed location. At least one member
was tweeting about the location. Folks, you said somebody
who had just tested positive was walking around unmasked, so you probably didn't
feel super safe in that location either. But you did go back to your office sort of
prematurely and had a pretty close call. I imagine it was a little
mad at you about that, too. What does walk us through? Like how what was your thinking
and how did you end up sort of getting back onto the floor safely? Well, we went back to this, this secure location and the Capitol
Police urged us. The House sergeant at arms
urged us not to tell people where we were And of course, people
were already tweeting and ignoring that recommendation,
tweeting from that location. And I realized that I had neglected to even call Eve
and let her know I was OK. And I called and I was talking to Eve,
and my daughter and my son got on the line and an even asked
me, Where are you? And we've just been admonished
not to tell people where we were. And I said, I'm not supposed to say. And then I hear in the background,
my son say, I know where he is. He used the Find Your Phone feature, you know, leave it to a teenager
to track you down. But but were you there
for a number of hours? And I hadn't eaten anything
since breakfast, and it was now like six in the evening
and I was getting very hungry and I noticed the number of people
were leaving the location and going back to their office. And I went up to the Capitol Police officers guarding the doors
and I said, Are we free to go? And they said, Well, we can't stop you. Which wasn't exactly a green light, right? But it wasn't exactly a red light. And so I did go back to my office
and no sooner did I get to the office when I got a a text message
from the Capitol Police are not not to me you know, specifically to all the members
saying shelter in place remain quiet. And I. Texted I took a I made a copy of it
and I sent it to my staff saying, Is this all? I hope this is old
and know that's a new message. And so I have been watching TV. I turn the TV, the volume off. I looked out the window and could see
all of the police vans and cars and just waited for the
the sign that it was OK to come out. And in classic house fashion, the all clear came in the form of there is food in this room in the capital. So I thought, OK, that's not exactly how you want to give the
all clear, but I agree. But I have to agree, and I presume
that if they're inviting us to go eat something, that it's probably safe to do so say politicians
and journalists do have a lot in common. We will go anywhere for free. I'm wondering, I mean, obviously when you came back to the floor
and continued to make the case that, you know,
the election should be certified, many Republicans still voted against that. But was there any of to name names? But were there any conversations you had
with GOP colleagues where you felt that they were as scared
as you had been? Or were they understood
the sort of magnitude? I mean, or did it really feel
like this division that like like a fissure
that almost deepened after that moment? Well, the fissure definitely deepened
after that moment, but the Republicans were also very worried
about their safety, and I ended up walking out with one of them
who was carrying this large wooden post. We had these posts that were were
I don't know how they nailed him to the House floor
that had a hand sanitizer dispenser on it And he was holding this thing and
still have the hand sanitizer thing on it And I said, Are you? Are you really that worried
and about your safety? And he said, Yes,
I think I just heard shots. And he was right. It was actually Babbitt
and not that far away. And I looked at him and I said because I had a member pinned on,
but I didn't recognize him. And I said, How long have you been here? And he said, 72 hours. And I said 72 hours. I didn't really understand
what he was saying. And he said I was just elected. And all I could say was. It's not always like this. And but I could imagine that being his welcome to Congress. Gosh. But but yeah, they were
they were very alarmed too. I think that. In the days
and weeks after, though, the usual happened. Just like Kevin McCarthy,
who in the moments after the insurrection blamed the former president, so many of them put their finger
to the wind and found that they were more likely to be punished
for saying so than the former president. And so even people who were,
you know, helping to push cabinets. In the way of these doors
to barricade ourselves in, we're suddenly found trying to diminish
the significance of what happened. Yeah. Well, let's stick with Kevin McCarthy. You have an interesting anecdote
in the book going back, I think to what 2010 or 2009 where you? We're on a plane
next to him to tell us that story. Well, I learned everything I needed
to know about Kamikaze on a plane. And he and I obviously both California representatives, but our districts
are probably 100 miles apart. And so we hadn't really had a conversation
before, not not owing to any animosity. We just never we weren't
on the same committees. We we just didn't run into each other. So by coincidence, we're seated next to each other on United
Airlines, flying back to D.C. and we had one of those kind of, you know,
nothing burgers of a conversation about the upcoming midterms,
which were still six months away. The House was very narrowly divided. I expressed the view that the economy would remain good
and that we would stay in the majority. And not surprisingly,
he took the opposite view. And then the movie started. I'm like, Thank God,
the movie started, and I didn't think anything of it. And we get to Washington. We go our separate ways. He goes off and apparently
does a briefing for the press. Now this was pre social media, so
I didn't know anything about the briefing I didn't know anything about what he said
until the next morning. When it turns out, he told the press that night
that the Republicans were definitely going to win the midterms.
Everybody knew it. He sat next to Adam Schiff on the plane,
and even Adam Schiff admitted that the Republicans
were going to win the midterms. And I was just incredulous and I I made a beeline
for him on the House floor. And I said, Kevin, if we're having a private conversation on the plane, I would have thought
it was a private conversation. But if it wasn't, you know, you told the
press the exact opposite of what I said. And he looks at me and he says,
Yeah, I know, Adam. But you know how it goes. And I was like, No, Kevin,
I don't know how it goes. You just make. And I know if I'm allowed
to use expletives here, stuff up. And that's how you operate, because that's not how I operate,
but that's that is how he operates. And in that respect,
he was a harbinger of things to come in the Republican Party
when truth is in truth and everybody's entitled to their own alternate facts
and you say what you need to say, you do what you need to do to gain power
and nothing else matters. Did you ever? So I mean, I would assume after that you didn't build any sort of
collegial relationship with him. No. In fact, I remember talking to Steny
Hoyer about this years ago and saying, because Steny is our majority leader
had the most interaction with McCarthy. I said, How do you how do you
how do you deal with that right? I mean, if you can't trust at all
the person you're talking to, how can you find any agreement,
common ground, et cetera? But there seemed to be no no profit in my trying to have a relationship with someone
with such little regard for the truth. It's so interesting because he didn't have that reputation in Sacramento
and he was in the state legislature. I mean, it's pretty moderate. He's a go and guy. Is it? Do you see it now? Well, you know, I don't think that he's
ideological in the sense. I don't think he
has a core set of beliefs. I think, you know, like Donald Trump, frankly, Donald Trump
doesn't have an ideology. It's just Donald Trump. And and tragically, neither
does the Republican Party right now. The Republican Party doesn't stand
for all the things that used to claim it stood for, like standing up to Russia,
like free trade, like family values. Any of these things fiscal responsibility. None of those things,
it turns out, mattered compared to gaining power and keeping it. And for me, this was one of two terrible
realizations of the last few years, which is a lot of the people in the GOP
that I served with, that I respected that I admired because I believed
that they believed what they were saying. It turns out they they didn't
believe it at all, or if they did believe it, it just didn't matter compared
to Can I keep my my house seat? Can I climb the ladder into the Senate? Can I have a maybe a cabinet post
in the Trump administration? And in this sense, and I keep coming
back to this in the book, I realized the wisdom of something
that historian Robert Caro once said that power doesn't corrupt
as much as it reveals. It doesn't always reveal us for our best,
but it reveals a lot about who we are. And over the last four years,
it it's revealed a lot about who we are,
about who we are in Congress. It's revealed a lot about who
we are as Americans and and we need to pay attention to what what it's showed us.
Do you think the same goes for his counterpart,
Mitch McConnell in the Senate? I mean, he does seem like he has more of an ideology
and he seems to be on the outs with Trump now, which is sort of
interesting as well. But. And just what's your sense
of that relationship like? In the last week, we saw leader Schumer
and he go after each other very publicly. You know, in my experience
in previous years, like you could have those public fights, but still,
you know, go out for a drink later. Like it seems like
things are not like that in D.C. anywhere Yeah. I view Mitch McConnell in
a very different way than Kevin McCarthy, McConnell began. And I think for much of his career
was an institutionalist. Yeah, very old school in a way. But that began to change, and this was
one of those canaries in the coal mine when he made the decision to withhold
confirmation hearings of Merrick Garland. That was about as anti institutional
an act as you could take it. It sacrificed the interests
of a co-equal branch of government. It was crassly political. It was designed solely to excite the conservative base to help him
gain power or keep power. And and yet what took place
over the next four years? Moved him so much further down
that path of shattering the institution that that he had served in
for four decades. I do, and this nags at me. I do think that we had an opportunity
after the terrible trauma of the insurrection to turn the corner. And you could see almost the the internal conflict within McConnell recognizing what a danger
Trump was, what a disaster he was for the Republican Party,
how much he had destroyed this institutio that McConnell had served in for decades. You could see him flirt
with the idea of throwing Trump overboard After the second impeachment trial,
he gave a speech, I think, on the Senate floor
talking about how Trump was morally and practically responsible
for the insurrection. But it was only two weeks after that when he was asked, well,
what if he's the nominee again? And he said that
he would absolutely support Trump. And in those two weeks, we lost the chance
to turn the corner as a country. And I think what McConnell concluded
was that if he tried to throw Trump overboard, that he himself
would be thrown overboard. And that may have been correct. But but this is a question I've asked myself
so many times over the last few years. Why are you even there? If when the country really needs you,
you're not going to do the right thing? Why did you run? You know, I look at my colleagues. Steve Scalise, the No. three Republican,
was on Chris Wallace on Sunday, and he was asked, Can you tell us
whether the election was stolen? Do you believe the election was stolen?
And he couldn't answer the question? He wouldn't answer the question. He was too scared to answer the question. Now I have to think when he ran
for Congress, he didn't think, Oh, one day I hope to deny
the integrity of our elections. And so the book is is a lot about this
transformation that I witnessed. There been a lot of books
about what's happened in the White House during the Trump years, but not much about
what happened in Congress. And Trump would have never been possible. The destruction of so many of our norms
would have never been possible if he didn't have so many enablers
in the Congress. And and I think when this chapter
not in my book, but when this chapter in history is written and we have more perspective on
what the country's been through that some of the most damning language
will be reserved for people in Congress that knew what they were doing was wrong. That refused to find the courage
of the patriotism to stand up to this
most unethical presidents. Well, you trace some of this. I mean, we talked about
that McCarthy conversation, but back to and I think Merrick Garland
is probably another example. But to put the Benghazi hearings right? Why do you see that as so illustrative of how someone like President Trump
got elected and sort of seized power? I think Benghazi was really a bridge
to the Republican future, where facts would no no longer matter where even the worst tragedy,
one involving the death of Americans, would be exploited
for political advantage. You know, we've come a long way
from politics ending at the water's edge. And in the case of Benghazi. We did, I think, six or seven investigations of Benghazi before
there was a select committee on Benghazi. I was on one of those investigative
committees on the Intelligence Committee. It was a Republican led investigation
by Mike Rogers and we completely debunked all of these conspiracies
about Hillary Clinton. And there were other bipartisan
investigations in the House and Senate and the Armed Services Committees
that reached the same conclusions. There was really no doubt
about what happened. It was tragic, but it wasn't
scandalous. And McCarthy? Decided, no, we need to do a different
kind of investigation to drive down Hillary's polling numbers,
and they pick Trey Gowdy to lead it. And that's what they did. That's what they use the committee for to tear down her numbers. And tragically, it was successful. And I think if Trump had been watching, he must have been very encouraged
to see that you can make your own reality if you've got a big enough bully pulpit,
if you've got a media empire willing to amplify those falsehoods. You can sell them and. And I think that was just a foretaste of
of what was to come. Let's talk about Russia actually have an audience question
before we get into some of this, but can anything be done to pursue
investigation for the obstruction of justice documented
in the Mueller report? Well, I think at this point, that's probably very difficult. And we have enough on our hands, frankly, investigating
the January six insurrection. And the former president's role in that, and I think that really is
where we need to keep our focus. But one of the things
I did want to do in the book is point out just what happened
with Russia and the Trump campaign, because the way the country learned about
the facts was a drip here and a drip there, a drip
down over two years. And I think that the combination of the the piecemeal over time Syria and way
the public learned about this, combined with the
the the really disciplined use of the presidential bully,
put a bully pulpit. The no collusion,
no obstruction really served to obscure exactly what happened,
which is pretty simple. And among the things that that happened,
which is pretty simple and pretty shocking, is Trump's
campaign chairman Paul Manafort was meeting secretly
with an agent of Russian intelligence and giving that agent internal
campaign polling data and insights into their strategy
in battleground states. While that same unit
of Russian intelligence was running a social media campaign
to elect Donald Trump. Now people ask, Well,
what's your evidence of collusion? Well, how about that? And that's just Exhibit A. There are lots of other exhibits. But one of the things that I do try to do
in very summary form in the book is just set out
the very basic facts because, you know, Trump very skillfully. He wasn't he wasn't much of a businessman
before he became president. He was a terrible president. But he does have one claim to fame. He is a very good marketer. He is very good in the way that grifters
are really good at marketing. And we need to continually,
I think, push back with the truth. You know, I think it's a good point that
when you read it all sort of in a linear fashion and with the benefit of hindsight,
it's pretty shocking. And one thing that did stick out to me is the central role
of WikiLeaks in all of this. And Julian Assange, really? And I'm just curious
like how you view that because, you know, when WikiLeaks first came out,
I think there was a sense that they were doing, in some cases,
something democratic, right? And I think the view of a lot of people
has changed around that. You know, there's an extradition case against Assange that has to do
with the Chelsea Manning stuff. But I mean, what do you see
as their sort of role in that? When you think about Russia and Trump
and the whole 2016 and and how do you think there's any part of the sort
of public understanding that's missing? Well, you know, I would say probably
what people may not fully appreciate about WikiLeaks and that whole saga during the 2016 campaign is here. We had the Russians
hack into Clinton's campaign, hack into the DNC and the discrepancy, and they wanted to push out this
information to help elect Donald Trump. But they wanted to do it
in a way to give themselves deniability. And so they they chose WikiLeaks
to be their primary cutout. Now they used a couple
other cutouts as well. They use DC leaks, for example.
But the primary cutout was WikiLeaks, and WikiLeaks had to know that they were
laundering money, not money. They were laundering information
for the Russians. WikiLeaks had to know
that they were helping the Russian intelligence services tear down
the Democratic candidate for president, and that's not journalism. And and so, you know,
I know there are folks that that applaud their release of information, but the private. Twitter message exchanges between WikiLeaks
and, for example, Don Jr. Tell a very different story
about what was going on here. one of the most telling
one of the most chilling to me was a message from WikiLeaks, as I recall, to don junior saying If your father loses, we think he should claim
that the election was was rigged . That was in 2016. That was in 2016. And. That's not the kind of thing you do if you're a transparency
organization, such and such. That's the kind of thing to do
if you have a political score to settle. Now, I don't know what his score. You know, Julian Assange,
what his score was to settle. I don't know what their relationship with
Russia is or their antagonism to Clinton was based on. But that's that that,
I think is a very sinister action. And so I don't view them as an innocuous purveyor of private information at all. I mean, but it is complicated, right? Because it was under the Trump administration that the CIA documents
were leaked by them. Reportedly, Mike
Pompeo wanted to assassinate him. I mean, it does feel a little murky
in terms of, to your point, like what the what the sort of goals were. I know you can't talk about
all that, probably. But like, I mean,
how do you think about that? Because it does feel like
this is something you know, that has has plagued now
three administrations, essentially. Well, again, I put WikiLeaks
in a completely different category than other situations where you have
the press reporting on information that is very newsworthy,
that may also have been purloined. And you know, to give you an illustration, though, of how
I think that should be handled in 2016 after the Russians hacked these democratic organizations
and we're publishing this stuff. I remember having a conversation. Steve Israel, a former colleague of mine
from New York, and I on the phone with the editor,
one of the editors of the New York Times, making the case that, first of all,
not every stolen document is newsworthy. I mean, I think they were
publishing out of it was the times it was publishing this, but they were publishing
John Podesta's soda recipe. So not everything is newsworthy,
but but and I wouldn't say that that they could never publish
something that was stolen. But I did think they owed it to their
readers and frankly to the country that if they were going to publish
something stolen by a hostile power with the intent of influencing our election,
they should let the reader know that. And and so my argument,
the New York Times, was if you feel compelled to print something
because it's truly newsworthy, you should always preface it by saying in documents
believed to have been stolen by the Russian government and purposely
leaked to influence the election. We learned that. So at least the reader can put in context why they're getting
the information they were. But but we couldn't
persuade them to do it. And all too often
the form of those stories, which came out almost daily, sometimes hourly, they would they would recite
what they found in these stolen documents At the very end they would say. We called the Clinton campaign for comment
and they declined to comment. And to me, that was a real disservice. And I do think that after
the experience of 2016, the press was much more sophisticated
about not allowing itself to be used in that way. So I think that the handling of this kind of foreign interference in 2020
was was much better. Well, and talk about that,
I mean, I think we have a lot more details
about Russia's interference in 2016. But what do you think happened last year and did it differ from,
you know, four years prior? There were a couple
significant differences. first, I think that Russia
was sufficiently deterred from crossing certain red lines so they did not hack and dump documents,
which was the most in-your-face active measure of the prior election. They did continue
their social media campaign, maybe not on the same scale and scope
as they had four years earlier. But but they didn't. They didn't try to monkey
with the vote count, either. And I think the reason they were deterred
from certain things in 2020 when they weren't in 2016
is they realized that if Joe Biden won, there would be a serious price to pay. And and so I think there was that
deterrent impact. The other thing that happened,
though, in 2020, was less less optimistic and less positive. And that is, in 2020,
you had the US intelligence agencies, at least
some of them, like the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, now headed by Trump acolytes
partizans, who were chosen not because of any particular background
in intelligence, but because of their unswerving loyalty
to the president. And so while the Russians
were interfering in social media while the Russians were denigrating
Joe Biden in the same way they denigrate Hillary Clinton, by the way, the Russians
were pushing out the false narrative. Hillary Clinton was unwell,
and they were pushing out the same false narrative about Joe Biden because
Donald Trump is pushing out that narrativ and they were also pushing it out. I think an even more destructive
narrative of the president, the former president,
which was the elections are rigged. So the Russians were helping
amplify Trump's false messages. But we now had intelligence leaders who would not be honest
with the public about it. And so you had people
like Ratcliffe and Bill Barr and others saying,
Oh no, no, don't worry about the Russians It's the Chinese we have to be worried
about now. The Chinese ultimately concluded that it didn't
add up for them to intervene. But the the these heads of
some of the agencies were affirmatively and knowingly
misleading the public and you know, one of the things you do to to thwart
foreign interference is expose it and and by pushing out
this false line about China, the intelligence agencies as heads were
essentially giving Russia a green light. And so that was a significant difference
from the Obama administration in 2016, which was willing to call the Russians
out and what they were doing. Do you I mean, you mentioned the
the disinformation on social media and like as somebody whose job it is
to try to get the truth out to me, that is very frightening
because a lot of the things, you know, we're going to get to around
the ongoing threats to our electoral system
and our democratic processes. It's not just about the sort of people who are elected right,
it's about the support from the ground. I mean, that is to me,
a huge part of this story. It is a huge part of the story. And you're right. I think there are a number of factors
that made Donald Trump possible. There are serious changes
in our global economy in which millions of people are working
harder than ever and barely getting by. But there are also
there's also a revolution going on in communication where most people now
get their information from social media. And that's a medium in which lies
and anger and fear traveled virality. And we haven't figured it out yet
because those changes have taken place with just breakneck speed. You know, one thing that I write about,
there's a scene in the book where we have our first hearing
with the tech executives. And it's about Russian interference
in the election. And it was, you know,
it was kind of a strange phenomenon where the first committee to do real oversight of the tech industry
was the intelligence committee. But we went through the questions
about Russian interference in the electio and and we did a second round of questions
and in the second round. I remember asking these general counsel of Facebook and Twitter and YouTube. Well, let's, you know, step aside from
the Russia issue and foreign intervention And let me ask you about the impact
just on the American people. Are the algorithms
having the effect of dividing us, of pitting American against American, and I remember the general counsel
of Facebook saying, Well, I think the data is mixed are unclear. I don't know that
the data was mixed or unclear. Even then in 2017,
but it is very clear now, and I think we're going to need to reexamine the immunity
that these companies enjoy if they're not going to be better
stewards of the truth, if they're going to allow
these pernicious falsehoods to. To divide our country,
I think we're going to need to be much more scrupulous
about how we protect people's privacy. That has allowed the the,
you know, the micro-targeting of people. And and I also think
we're going to need transparency. We need a much better understanding of how
social media is affecting all of us, what it's doing to teenage girls, views of themselves
and what it's doing to prevent, you know, a meaningful conversation
between you and your neighbor. So your family members
or your family members? Well, I mean, I will say I was heartened
by the more recent hearings where there seemed to be
at least a bipartisan interest in understanding the algorithms
and the things you're talking about. I mean, do you think that's something Congress might actually be able to tackle
on a bipartisan basis? I do. I do. I think there is lots of bipartisan
common ground now. Like so many things, we may get to the same place
for very different reasons, right? For my conservative colleagues,
they like to push out this narrative that social media is biased against
conservatives, but actually conservatives Well, they dominate the dominant type
the top ten of every week. They dominate social media company. And, of course, no one more successfully
use social media than Donald Trump. So the idea that that somehow it's biased against them is is absurd. But nonetheless, if it gets us to common ground in terms of insisting on adjusting the algorithms so they don't, they're not set to inflame
us and divide us. If it helps us be better stewards
of people's personal data and privacy, then then I'll take
what cooperation I can get. Do you think there's been a measurable effect with Trump
not being on Twitter and Facebook? And I mean, is that
a good thing long term? Is it like like is, you know, if he decides to run again? Like, do you think that would
make a difference? Well, Trump not being on social media, I think is probably the single best thing
for the mental health of the country. I I really I really think that if you could take
a national blood pressure when he lost that Twitter feed the whole
broad purchase of West Coast journalists, it makes my life easier, right? Because you don't have to wake up
every day and go, What happened? Yes. Yes. 6:00 a.m. Eastern. Oh, and it's 6:00 a.m. I would wake up and see the president
attacking me on Twitter, which is not how I like to wake up. So look, I think it's it was the right decision
by the social media companies. If if it doesn't matter with you
or the president or anyone else, if you're violating the standards,
it should be the same standard. And will it change
if he runs for president? I'm convinced he's running for president. I think it would be intolerable to him to have anyone else
in the limelight like that. I mean, the idea that Nikki Haley
or Mike Pence or any of these people coul become the nominee,
get all that attention would just be excruciating for Donald Trump. So I think pathologically,
he cannot not run. And right now, he's
got an iron grip on that party, and we have to expect
that he'll be the nominee and whether he is
back on social media or not. And and I realize there
obviously very powerful economic incentives
for the companies to bring him back. But whether he's back or he's not, he will once again have a bigger platform to divide and poison the body politic. And this is again why it just so it grieves me
that that when we had the chance to move forward as a country,
when we saw the terrible end to which his presidency came
a bloody attack on the Capitol, that that we did not turn the corner. And now we're going to have to go through
another several years until I believe there will be
a final repudiation of Donald Trump when
he loses the next time. Yeah, it does, though blood pressure
aside, I mean, his base is still with him I mean, you probably saw that Iowa Chuck
Grassley endorsement recently, right? I mean, there's a sense and an audience member has a kind of
interesting question, which is that if the situation was flipped and President
Biden had engaged in illegal activities, would your seat be in danger
if you publicly decried him? Does the Democratic Party
have the same control over its elected officials as the Republican Party
or as Trump, I guess. Yeah. You know, I this is a question or a phenomenon that I acknowledge
during the Senate trial. And I said during the trial
that I hoped that if a Democratic president did anything
like what Donald Trump did , that we would impeach him
and that I would be leading the way. But I also acknowledge that you never know
until you're in those circumstances. But at the Senate, Republicans could not. Escape, the fact that they were
in those circumstances and they needed to to follow their oath. Is the Democratic Party
more willing to be critical of its own? I think the answer is unquestionably yes. Much, often to the exasperation
of people in the party is going to like
to eat your own slate sometimes. You know, we don't tend to shy away
from criticizing ourselves. And that's probably healthy. But but but look,
I profile a lot of heroes in the book because I want people
to be inspired by them. At the same time,
I make it very clear I'm not one of them. I have a constituency
whose views are very much like my own. And so standing up to Donald Trump
was not difficult for me politically. And and it's why I have all the more respect for people
who are willing to risk everything. You know, Liz Cheney,
Adam Kinzinger are very conservative. Our ideologies are not the same. But I respect the fact
that they have an ideology. I respect the fact that they're not
willing to propagate a big lie that that eats at the heart
of our democracy and. And there were so many people in the last four or five years
who had the choice of doing the right thing
or maybe losing their job. Dan Coats, conservative former Republican Indiana senator, becomes the head
of the intelligence community. He does the right thing. He's out. John Ratcliffe, he will say anything,
do anything for Donald Trump. He's in. Liz Cheney would not
propagate the big lie. She's out of the Republican leadership. Elise Stefanik, Hey, sign me up. I volunteer. You need someone
to carry the big lie. If it helps you advance me the party. Just tell me what I need to say. You know, power revealed who people were and and we need to look
to those heroic examples. And you know, frankly,
they're they're all over the country. Not everybody can be Marie Yovanovitch, but there are opportunities for all of us
in our own personal circles to make a difference right now. And I, you know, I ended up,
you know, even though we lost that trial being very optimistic because I listen
to Mitt Romney, talk about his faith, tal about his children and his grandchildren,
shows such tremendous courage. And I thought to myself, You know, this is vindication of the founders belief that people possess
sufficient virtue to govern themselves. We don't need to be ruled by a despot. We have very short memories
as human beings. We forget what what despotism looks like. People are now starting to question
whether democracy is even the right model anymore. And we need to be reminded of this incredible legacy
that we have and its importance. Well, let's talk
about the future of democracy. I think it's fair to say a lot of people
are really freaked out right now. And you know, and I think that this is
it's it's really a weird question to pose as a journalist
because it feels very Partizan. But it is happening on one side
of the aisle, right where you know, you talk about the Big Lie,
but we're also seeing the installation or installation of local elections
officials who won't go along with that. You know, we're in the middle
of our redistricting process, and there's a lot of questions about
whether we're going to be in a sort of, you know, situation in the house
where you could have minority rule essentially given,
you know, the way districts are drawn. I mean, what do you say to people
and we have a question from the audience who who asks you with the various state
voter suppression maneuvers, do you really believe
we'll have a democracy in 25 years? Well, you know, first
of all, let me let me start with your observation about the. It feels odd to ask the question
as a member of the press. 15 or 16 years ago,
I started a caucus on freedom of the pres with, ironically, my classmate Mike Pence. And it was devoted
to protecting the freedom of the press. And I think there's never been
a more difficult time looking at the pres as an outsider than the last several years
where you basically had a decision. You either hold that president to the same
standard as every other president or you don't. And if you do, it means you're calling him a liar every day
because he's lying every day. But I don't think there was really
any choice to be made. No, I guess it's more like the way I have
this question written down, which is like, what are Democrats
doing to safeguard democracy? And the fact that
that is even the question? Well, first of all, the premise of the question
is exactly right. And that is, there may be another
violent attack on the Capitol and the president is out there pushing
the same big lie that last that left, you know, that led
to the last attempted insurrection. It may lead to another. But my greater concern is of
the insurrectionists in the suits and tie those around the country who are stripping
these elections officials of their jobs or their jobs or their responsibilities,
and giving them over to people who will help overturn an election. It's basically the lesson Donald Trump
learned from the 2020 election, which is if he couldn't get Brad Raffensperger,
the secretary of state in Georgia, to find 11,780 votes that don't exist, he needs to have someone
in that job next who will, and that's how democracies
do come to an end. It's not always by
violent attack. More often, it is by the use of democracy's
own institutions to cannibalize itself. I think that's what's going on in Hungary. And you've got Tucker
Carlson and those other madmen on Fox Late Night extolling the Hungarian dictatorial model. And so I think that question goes right at the heart of the
greatest danger we have. What are Democrats doing to fight it? We're, you know, fighting
to pass legislation in Congress, H.R. one and the John Lewis voting rights bill that would protect our institutions,
our elections infrastructure around the country that would prohibit
the Republicans from doing a gerrymander. And this gets to really the the structural challenge to our democracy,
which is because of the gerrymander a minority of Americans generally control
the House of Representatives. So the House of Representatives
is generally unrepresentative during the first half of a of a census and redistricting
because of the gerrymander. The Senate is also unrepresentative because 23% of America in rural areas controls
60% of the votes in the Senate. And that's even without the filibuster. And then you have the presidency itself,
which, because of the archaic function of the Electoral College,
means that a president, the United States is often elected with a minority
of support of the American people. How long can a democracy persist if a majority is not making the decisions
for the country? And so those structural problems
need to be dealt with, and we are doing our very best
to deal with them now. We only have 50 members
of the Democratic Party in the Senate, and I understand the grave frustration that one or two of them
isn't with the program. Let's note we we almost got 45 minutes
and 40 before we mentioned Joe Manchin and Kristen Cinema. So I want I want a little bit of credit
here, but we're going to go there. So listen, I I believe me,
I feel the frustration intensely. Yeah. Well, we will get the we'll get the build back better bill
and the infrastructure bill passed. I've every confidence, the voting rights
stuff, though. Is existential. And that's a that's
a bigger, heavier, harder lift. But if we're going to make an exception
as the Republicans did. To the filibuster,
to stack the court with the conservative justices, and by the way, that's the least representative
institution is now the Supreme Court. That's the institution that represents the smallest minority of Americans
and still controls. But if there's going to be a carve out of the filibuster to stack the court, there ought to be
a carve out of the filibuster to make sure that people's
franchise is not taken away. I mean, I believe there's a vote
scheduled next week in the Senate on this and it's sort of a test of the filibuster
from what I understand. I mean, you worked with I'm my, for example, in and in the house
before she was elected to the Senate. Like, do you think the Democrats
will be able to get her in mansion to go along with this? And is it? Is it enough soon enough, right? I mean, will, like the midterms,
are around the corner? Yeah, there are those two questions.
Let's stick with mansion and cinema. Yeah You know, to be Canada, I don't understand
where cinema is coming from. I served with her in the house personally. We got along very well. But I don't understand
where she's coming from on this now. I have a little more understanding
of Joe Manchin, who represents a state that I think Trump won
by probably 30 points. That's a very conservative state,
and a lot of his constituents don't see the world as I do,
but they care about the filibuster. I mean, this is what baffles me. I think the debate on the economic agenda
and the detail, the policy details, I understand where someone like Joe
Manchin is coming from. The the filibuster does not seem like
a thing that people in the real world have such love as these senators. No, I think you're absolutely right. And and one of the reasons
why I have some optimism. I don't want to overstate it
that that we can find a path to getting this done
is during the impeachment trial. I got a sense of Joe Manchin. You know, I can't claim to know him well, but I got a sense of him. And my sense was that if we could demonstrate to him
both the president's guilt and why it was essential
that he be removed. Sufficiently that he could
explain it back home, that he would vote to convict
even someone who'd won his state by an overwhelming margin and by the way,
Trump was much more popular in West Virginia than he was in Utah. And we were able to make the case to Joe
Manchin, and he was able to make the case I think, back home. And he he was courageous in that vote,
making the case. About voting rights
should be so much easier. Should be so much easier. I do think it requires, you know, a lot of time on task
by the White House. Yeah, and and a real sense of urgency,
which I think the White House feels. I know I feel it. And you're absolutely right.
The clock is ticking. Around the country right now,
they are gerrymandering Republican states to once again try to impose
minority power on the country. And and so, you know,
I hear this big tick, tick, tick, tick every day when it comes to whether
the house is going to be representative. Yeah, I mean, some of the debate
that we're kind of alluding to is about a sort of bigger policy
and political challenges. And the the Democratic Party is a big tent
and you do have people like Manchin and, you know, people like
most of our congresspeople in California who are representing much bluer districts. I mean, do you there's been a lot
of postmortems of the last few elections. And whether, you know, last year, defund
the police was a big play big whether the Green New Deal,
you know, hurts moderates. I just wonder what
how you think about this because I think especially in the house, you have to learn
how to navigate all these different, not just personalities,
but sort of political positions. Is there a lesson out of last year about messaging
and where Democrats should go in 22? Oh, you know, there are a lot of lessons
about the last election, and I think, you know, in very broad terms what happened in the House where we are phenomenal challengers got wiped out, which was a terrible,
I think, loss for the country because the class of 2018
that produced the Elissa Slotkin and Elaine Luria is and Tom
Malinowski is in so many other Andy Kim's that was the strongest class in Congress
I think we've ever had, at least within the last half century. I will put them up against the Watergate
babies or anybody else. The class of 2020 was every bit as good,
but they just had lousy timing. And what happened to the class of 2020
is there were enough Republicans and conservative
independents who were so, so upset at what Donald Trump was doing to the country
that they would vote for Joe Biden. But that didn't make them Democrats. And as they travel down the ballot,
they reverted to form and voted Republican. And as a result,
unlike what you often have, where a president of one party
will sweep into office, particularly the first election,
a bunch of people from the same party there was actually a downward
drag on the ticket. Now. When we look forward to the midterms. I suppose the good news in
that is the reason why historically the party in power loses
seats in the midterms is because the president of their party
swept into office. All of these people
who didn't really represent the majority in that state,
that is the Partizan majority. Well, that was not the case
in the last presidential cycle. So we're we're in a better situation
to deal with the midterms than normally the party
would be in power in the White House. And if you look at the the special election that we had
a couple months ago in New Mexico, the Democratic candidate not only won that
special election but outperformed Biden, which tells me that they the determination to vote among Democrats
is as intense as ever. But without Trump on the ballot,
there's still a sizable number of Republicans who will not bother
going to the polls. Well, back here at home,
we have seen several districts in Orange County
flip back and forth in recent cycles. And of course, there is that awful oil
spill a few weeks ago. Do you think that's going
to have an impact on the seats that Democrats lost four years ago?
Michelle still young Kim. I think that it will serve to underscore the very sharp differences
between the parties when it comes to the environment. When people see things as tragic as that, they're reminded once again of not just jobs in the oil industry, but all the jobs and tourism and
all of the ecological damage that is done And so, look, it was an awful thing
that happened. But. I don't think that the Republicans
should take any kind of solace that they think it's
going to help them politically. I don't think it will. More broadly. Every time we see statistics like we just did
that California had its hottest year and. I don't know what, 100 years or more when we see the proliferation
of these terrible fires, more devastating hurricanes and storms, when we see parts of the country in Virginia that are underwater. I don't know how much more it's
going to take before people realize that this is this is urgent. And in that sense, I don't think I'm
a supporter of the Green New Deal. I don't think that's politically fraught. Like some of my Republican colleagues
seem to think so much of what the Democratic Party is doing is supported by the overwhelming
majority of the public. The challenge we've always had as a party
is because, as you say, we are so diverse it's it's much more challenging to get
everybody on the same page, message wise. I mean, when I need to find one
of my Republican colleagues on the other side of the aisle
and I go over the other side of the aisle to look for them, it's really hard
because they all look like me. And when you're a very homogeneous party. That answers to a central authority or authority figure in this case, it's
much easier to control message. They also have something we don't have,
which is they've got that whole media infrastructure that that amplifies
their message relentlessly. Whereas, you know,
the Democrat Democratic Party has a lot more different voices, and here we are
in a very evenly divided Congress. Well, last question then. Looking at build back
better, the economic plan and the infrastructure deal, you know,
I talked to Speaker Pelosi last night at KQED, and she's very confident
those will get passed. But it does look like the bigger
one will get scaled down a little bit. I'm just curious
how you're thinking about that. And, you know, in your conversations
with colleagues, because, you know, things like climate change,
some of those policies are not things Americans will see overnight
in terms of the impacts, right? Some of the social programs
and others they might. I mean, what what what is your advice
to your own caucus when you think about how to maybe do a little less
but still make it impactful? Well, first of all, I'm
with the progressives. I want as big a package as we can get. But I would say a couple of things. first, we've been too focused on the No. You know, what we do
is going to be paid for. Now I know you do. I know you did. You know, what we do
is going to be paid for. So the number is really zero. And I think it's wise
that we're starting to look at in order to get the votes,
the duration of what we're going to pass to bring down the cost
rather than taking things out. But I had one colleague who who asked me a question that really helped
put all this in context for me. And he said that he thought we'd made a mistake
with the expectations game. He asked me, What if I told you
at the beginning of this year? That within the course of a single year,
we were going to pass a rescue plan that lifted half the children in poverty
in the nation out of poverty. That was going to help
small businesses stay alive. That was going to help
people put a roof over their head. But that wasn't all we would do. We would also pass
a major infrastructure bill that would help rebuild our roads
and our highways and our electric grid. But even that wasn't all. We would also pass a mammoth bill
that would invest in early childhood education and child
care and expanding Medicare to cover vision and dental and hearing
and invest in a green economy. What if I told you
that we were able to do all of that and I said, Oh my God,
I would be astonished. I would be thrilled. I would. I would think nothing like that
has been done since the new deal, and I am worried that that if we
if we don't hit a certain number that some are going to feel,
Oh, you know, this is disappointing when what we're doing is transformative and what we're doing is not only so vital to people's everyday lives and making
sure the economy works for everyone. But it's so integral to to protecting our
democracy because at the end of the day, we need to show that
democracy can deliver. And I share the speaker's optimism. We're going to get this done. Last week or two weeks ago,
that was Act one, and I fully expected you need to go through Act one
before we get to the end of the play. The only question I have is,
is this to explain exactly, and I hope and pray
it's a two act play. But whatever many acts it is, it's going
to have a very successful conclusion. All right, we will leave it there. So many thanks to Congressman Adam Schiff
for joining us today and discussing his new book,
Midnight in Washington How We Almost Lost Our Democracy
and Still Could. We'd also like to thank our audience
for watching and participating live. If you'd like to watch more programs
or support the Commonwealth Club's efforts in making both in-person
and virtual programing possible, you can visit Commonwealth
Club dorgi events. I'm Marisa ....
I can't even say my own name. I am Marissa Lagos. Congressman
Adam Schiff, thank you all for being here
