California Democrats have assumed leading roles in their party’s counter-offensive to the Trump administration’s massive immigration crackdown — seizing on a growing sense, shared by some Republicans, that the campaign has gotten so out of hand that the political winds have shifted heavily in their favor.
They stalled Department of Homeland Security funding in the Senate and pushed the impeachment of Secretary Kristi Noem in the House. They strategized against a threatened move by President Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act and challenged administration policies and street tactics in federal court. And they have shown up in Minneapolis to express outrage and demanded Department of Justice records following two fatal shootings of U.S. citizens there.
The push comes at an extremely tense moment, as Minneapolis and the nation reel from the fatal weekend shooting of Alex Pretti, and served as an impetus for a spending deal reached late Thursday between Senate Democrats and the White House to avert another partial government shutdown. The compromise would allow lawmakers to fund large parts of the federal government while giving them more time to negotiate new restrictions for immigration agents.
“This is probably one of the few windows on immigration specifically where Democrats find themselves on offense,” said Mike Madrid, a California Republican political consultant. “It is a rare and extraordinary moment.”
Both of the state’s Democratic senators, Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla, came out in staunch opposition to the latest Homeland Security funding measure in Congress, vowing to block it unless the administration scales back its street operations and reins in masked agents who have killed Americans in multiple shootings, clashed with protestors and provoked communities with aggressive tactics.
Under the agreement reached Thursday, the Department of Homeland Security will be funded for two weeks — a period of time that in theory will allow lawmakers to negotiate guardrails for the federal agency. The measure still will need to be approved by the House, though it is not clear when they will hold a vote — meaning a short shutdown still could occur even if the Senate deal is accepted.
Padilla negotiated with the White House to separate the controversial measures in question — to provide $64.4 billion for Homeland Security and $10 billion specifically for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement — from a broader spending package that also funds the Pentagon, the State Department and health, education and transportation agencies.
Senate Democrats vowed to not give more money to federal immigration agencies, including ICE and Customs and Border Protection, unless Republicans agree to require agents to wear body cameras, take off masks during operations and stop making arrests and searching homes without judicial warrants. All Senate Democrats and seven Senate Republicans blocked passage of the broader spending package earlier Thursday.
“Anything short of meaningful, enforceable reforms for Trump’s out-of-control ICE and CBP is a non-starter,” Padilla said in a statement after the earlier vote. “We need real oversight, accountability and enforcement for both the agents on the ground and the leaders giving them their orders. I will not vote for anything less.”
Neither Padilla nor Schiff immediately responded to requests for comment on the deal late Thursday.
Even if Democrats block Homeland Security funding after the two-week deal expires, immigration operations would not stop. That’s because ICE received $75 billion under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act last year — part of an unprecedented $178 billion provided to Homeland Security through the mega-bill.
Trump said Thursday he was working “in a very bipartisan way” to reach a compromise on the funding package. “Hopefully we won’t have a shutdown, we are working on that right now,” he said. “I think we are getting close. I don’t think Democrats want to see it either.”
The administration has eased its tone and admitted mistakes in its immigration enforcement campaign since Pretti’s killing, but hasn’t backed down completely or paused operations in Minneapolis, as critics demanded.
This week Padilla and Schiff joined other Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee in calling on the Justice Department to open a civil rights investigation into the fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good by immigration agents in Minneapolis. In a letter addressed to Assistant Atty. Gen. for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon, they questioned her office’s decision to forgo an investigation, saying it reflected a trend of “ignoring the enforcement of civil rights laws in favor of carrying out President Trump’s political agenda.”
Dhillon did not respond to a request for comment. Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said there is “currently no basis” for such an investigation.
Schiff also has been busy preparing his party for any move by Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act, which would give the president broad authority to deploy military troops into American cities. Trump has threatened to take that move, which would mark a dramatic escalation of his immigration campaign.
A spokesperson confirmed to The Times that Schiff briefed fellow Democrats during a caucus lunch Wednesday on potential strategies for combating such a move.
“President Trump and his allies have been clear and intentional in laying the groundwork to invoke the Insurrection Act without justification and could exploit the very chaos that he has fueled in places like Minneapolis as the pretext to do so,” Schiff said in a statement. “Whether he does so in connection with immigration enforcement or to intimidate voters during the midterm elections, we must not be caught flat-footed if he takes such an extreme step to deploy troops to police our streets.”
Meanwhile, Rep. Robert Garcia of Long Beach, the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, announced he will serve as one of three Democrats leading an impeachment inquiry into Noem, whom Democrats have blasted for allowing and excusing violence by agents in Minneapolis and other cities.
Garcia called the shootings of Good and Pretti “horrific and shocking,” so much so that even some Republicans are acknowledging the “severity of what happened” — creating an opening for Noem’s impeachment.
“It’s unacceptable what’s happening right now, and Noem is at the top of this agency that’s completely rogue,” he said Thursday. “People are being killed on the streets.”
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) went to Minneapolis this week to talk to residents and protesters about the administration’s presence in their city, which he denounced as unconstitutional and violent.
California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta has gone after a slew of Trump immigration policies both in California and across the country — including by backing a lawsuit challenging immigration deployments in the Twin Cities, and joining in a letter to U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi denouncing the administration’s attempts to “exploit the situation in Minnesota” by demanding local leaders turn over state voter data in exchange for federal agents leaving.
California’s leaders are far from alone in pressing hard for big changes.
Cardinal Joseph Tobin, the head of the Archdiocese of Newark (N.J.) and a top ally of Pope Leo XIV, sharply criticized immigration enforcement this week, calling ICE a “lawless organization” and backing the interruption of funding to the agency. On Thursday the NAACP and other prominent civil rights organizations sent a letter to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) arguing that ICE should be “fully dissolved” and that Homeland Security funding should be blocked until a slate of “immediate and enforceable restrictions” are placed on its operations.
Madrid, the Republican consultant, said California’s leaders have a clear reason to push for policies that protect immigrants, given the state is home to 1 in 4 foreign-born Americans and immigration is “tied into the fabric of California.”
And at a moment when Trump and other administration officials clearly realize “how far out of touch and how damaging” their immigration policies have become politically, he said, California’s leaders have a real opportunity to push their own agenda forward — especially if it includes clear, concrete solutions to end the recent “egregious, extra-constitutional violation of rights” that many Americans find so objectionable.
However, Madrid warned that Democrats wasted a similar opportunity after the unrest around the killing of George Floyd by calling to “defund the police,” which was politically unpopular, and could fall into a similar pitfall if they push for abolishing ICE.
“You’ve got a moment here where you can either fix [ICE], or lean into the political moment and say ‘abolish it,’” he said. “The question becomes, can Democrats run offense? Or will they do what they too often have done with this issue, which is snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?”
The junior senator from California took to X to counter Trump’s comments on the midterm elections, ICE and the economy
Suspending midterm elections, sending armed federal agents into American cities and the state of the economy – these were just some of the issues Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) touched on in a video responding to President Trump’s latest interview with Reuters.
In a nearly eight-minute clip posted to X yesterday, the junior senator from California rebuked the president’s suggestion of canceling midterm elections, saying that Trump “knows he’s gonna lose” and is trying to discourage voter and volunteer participation.
“We’re having a midterm election whether he likes it or not,” Schiff told his 3.3 million followers on X. “Do not let Donald Trump persuade you otherwise.”
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt later claimed that Trump was “simply joking” and “speaking facetiously,” telling reporters the president was saying, “we’re doing such a great job, maybe we should just keep rolling.”
Donald Trump doesn’t think we need a midterm election.
Donald Trump thinks the economy is the best it’s ever been.
Donald Trump’s latest interview shows him increasingly losing touch with reality.
Schiff also touched on the state of the economy, which Trump told Reuters was the strongest “in history.”
“We’re still plagued by high inflation, we’re seeing unemployment numbers tick up,” Schiff said. “Trump has failed to keep his campaign promise to bring down prices on day one or even the first year.”
While prices for staple goods such as eggs, milk and gas have fallen since Trump took office, overall annual inflation remains above the Federal Reserve’s 2% target, resting at 2.7%, down from 3% in January last year.
Scroll to continue reading
The Democratic senator went on to criticize Trump for calling the shooting of Renee Good by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer “unfortunate,” while continuing to increase ICE’s presence in American cities.
“What Trump doesn’t acknowledge is that the provocation he creates by sending armed federal agents into American cities is endangering communities and causing tragic losses of life,” Schiff said.
He also attacked Trump over blaming Ukraine for failing to reach a peace settlement with Russia and shrugging off bipartisan criticism of threats to invade Greenland and investigate Fed Chair Jerome Powell.
Schiff’s latest clip is part of a recent campaign to create daily social media videos focused on “identifying something really important that happened today, what we should make of it” and how Democrats can fight back.
The first-term Senator consistently ranks among the top-performing Democratic lawmakers on social media by embracing what he calls an “all-of-the-above” approach to engaging with digital platforms.
“We need to make sure people hear our message, and that we’re not just talking to the same people over and over again,” Schiff said in an interview with Axios.
Five months after joining the U.S. Senate, Adam Schiff delivered a floor speech on what he called “the top 10 deals for Donald Trump and the worst deals for the American people.”
“Trump gets rich. You get screwed,” the Democrat said.
The speech was classic Schiff — an attempt by the former prosecutor to wrangle a complex set of graft allegations against Trump and his orbit into a single, cohesive corruption case against the president, all while serving up his own party’s preferred messaging on rising costs and the lack of affordability.
It was also a prime example of the tack Schiff has taken since being sworn in one year ago to finish the final term of the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a titan of California politics who held the seat for more than 30 years before dying in office in 2023.
Schiff — now serving his own six-year term — has remained the unblinking antagonist to Trump that many Californians elected him to be after watching him dog the president from the U.S. House during Trump’s first term in the White House. He’s also continued to serve as one of the Democratic Party’s most talented if slightly cerebral messengers, hammering Trump over his alleged abuses of power and the lagging economy, which has become one of the president’s biggest liabilities.
Schiff has done so while also defending himself against Trump’s accusations that he committed mortgage fraud on years-old loan documents; responding to the devastating wildfires that ripped through the Los Angeles region in January; visiting 25 of California’s 58 counties to meet more of his nearly 40 million constituents; grilling Trump appointees as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee; and struggling to pass legislation as a minority member of a profoundly dysfunctional Congress that recently allowed for the longest federal government shutdown in U.S. history.
It’s been an unusual and busy freshman year, attracting sharp criticism from the White House but high praise from his allies.
“Pencil Neck Shifty Schiff clearly suffers from a severe case of Trump Derangement Syndrome that clouds his every thought,” said Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson. “It’s too bad for Californians that Pencil Neck is more focused on his hatred of the President than he is on the issues that matter to them.”
“He’s been great for California,” said Rep. Robert Garcia of Long Beach, ranking Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee who endorsed Schiff’s opponent, former Rep. Katie Porter, in the Senate primary. “He’s not afraid of taking on Trump, he’s not afraid of doing tough oversight, he’s not afraid of asking questions, and it’s clear that Donald Trump is scared of Adam Schiff.”
“While he may be a freshman in the Senate,” said Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), “he’s certainly no rookie.”
Attempts to legislate
Before he became known nationally for helping to lead Trump’s first-term impeachments and investigate the Jan. 6 storming of the U.S. Capitol by Trump’s supporters, Schiff was known as a serious legislator. Since joining the Senate, he has tried to reclaim that reputation.
He has introduced bills to strengthen homes against wildfires and other natural disasters, give tax relief to Los Angeles fire victims, strengthen California’s fire-crippled insurance market, study AI’s impact on the American workforce, reinstate a national assault weapons ban and expand federal tax credits for affordable housing.
He has also introduced bills to end Trump’s tariffs, rein in the powers of the executive branch, halt the president and other elected officials from getting rich off cryptocurrencies, and end the White House-directed bombing campaign on alleged drug boats in the Caribbean.
None of that legislation has passed.
Schiff said he’s aware that putting his name on legislation might diminish its chances of gaining support, and at times he has intentionally taken a back seat on bills he’s worked on — he wouldn’t say which — to give them a better shot of advancing. But he said he also believes Democrats need to “point out what they’re for” to voters more often, and is proud to have put his name on bills that are important to him and he believes will bring down costs for Californians.
As an example, he said his recent Housing BOOM (Building Occupancy Opportunity for Millions) Act is about building “millions of new homes across America, like we did after World War II, that are affordable for working families,” and is worth pushing even if Republicans resist it.
“As we saw with the healthcare debate, when Republicans aren’t acting to bring costs down, when they’re doing things that make costs go up instead, we can force them to respond by putting forward our own proposals to move the country forward,” he said. “If Republicans continue to be tone deaf to the needs of the American people, with President Trump calling the affordability issue a hoax, then they’re gonna get the same kind of shellacking that they did in the election last month.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), a staunch ally, called Schiff a “legislative genius” who is “giving people hope” with his bills, which could pass if Democrats win back the House next year.
“He has a vision for our country. He has knowledge of issues par excellence from all of the years that he’s served. He’s a strategic thinker,” she said. “I wouldn’t question how he decides to take up a bill just because what’s-his-name’s in the White House.”
Mike Madrid, a Republican consultant, said Schiff’s prominent position on Trump’s enemies list of course hurts his chances of passing legislation, but the hyper-partisan nature of Congress means his chances weren’t great to begin with.
Meanwhile, being seen as working for solutions clearly serves him and his party well, Madrid said, adding, “He’s probably accomplishing more socially than he ever could legislatively.”
Criticism and praise
For months, Trump and his administration have been accusing several prominent Democrats of mortgage-related crimes. Trump has accused Schiff of mortgage fraud for claiming primary residency in both California and Maryland, which Schiff denies.
So far, nothing has come of it. Schiff said that he has not been interviewed by federal prosecutors, who are reportedly skeptical of the case, and that he doesn’t know anything about it other than that it is “a broad effort to silence and intimidate the president’s critics.”
Schiff’s supporters and other political observers in the state either ignored the issue when asked about Schiff’s first year, were dismissive of it or said they saw it as a potential asset for the senator.
“Adam Schiff is a person of great integrity, and people know that,” Pelosi said.
“Probably one of the best things that could happen to Schiff is if Trump actually goaded the [Justice Department] to charge him for mortgage fraud, and then for the case to be thrown out in court,” said Garry South, a veteran Democratic strategist — noting that is what happened with a similar case brought against New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James.
“He’s really benefited from having Trump put a target on his back,” South said. “In California, that’s not a death knell, that’s a life force.”
Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.), who chairs the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, which Schiff sits on, said California represents a big part of the nation’s agriculture industry and having Schiff on the committee “is a good thing not just for California, but for our overall efforts to support farmers and producers nationwide.”
“I have known Sen. Schiff since we served in the House together, and we are both committed to advocating farmers’ and rural America’s needs in a bipartisan way,” Boozman said. “We look forward to more opportunities to advance these goals together.”
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who chairs the Judiciary Committee, has “a cordial, professional relationship” with Schiff, a spokesperson said.
Corrin Rankin, chairwoman of the California Republican Party, declined to comment. Riverside Sheriff Chad Bianco, the leading Republican in the race for governor, did not respond to a request for comment.
Looking ahead
What comes next for Schiff will depend in part on whether Democrats win back a majority in Congress. But people on both sides of the political aisle said they expect big things from him regardless.
Garcia said Schiff will be “at the center of holding the Trump administration accountable” no matter what happens. “Obviously, in the majority, we’re going to have the ability to subpoena, and to hold hearings, and to hold the administration accountable in a way that we don’t have now, but even in the minority, I think you see Adam’s strong voice pretty constant.”
Kevin Spillane, a veteran GOP strategist, said he doesn’t make much of Schiff’s economic messaging because voters in California know that Democrats have caused the state’s affordability crisis by raising taxes and imposing endless regulations.
But Schiff is already “the second-most important Democrat in California” after Newsom, he said, and his hammering on affordability could propel him even further if voters start to see him as working toward solutions.
Rob Stutzman, another Republican consultant, said he can see Schiff in coming years “ascend to the Feinstein role” of “the caretaker of California in the U.S. Congress” — someone with “the ability to broker deals” on hugely important issues such as water and infrastructure. But to do so, Stutzman said, Schiff “needs to extract himself from the political meme of being a Trump antagonist.”
Schiff said he knew heading to the Senate as Trump returned to the White House that he would be dividing his time “between delivering for California and fighting the worst of the Trump policies.” But his efforts to fix the economy and his efforts to resist Trump are not at odds, he said, but deeply intertwined.
“When people feel like the quality of life their parents had was better, and the future for their kids looks like it’s even more in doubt, all too many are ready to entertain any demagogue who comes along promising they alone can fix it. They start to question whether democracy really works,” he said. “So I don’t think we’re going to put our democracy on a solid footing until we have our economy on a solid footing.”
Times staff writer Ana Ceballos in Washington contributed to this report.
The Department of Justice is investigating the handling of a probe focused on Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff of California, sources tell CBS News. Scott MacFarlane reports.
Federal authorities are now pursuing a misdemeanor charge against David Huerta, president of Service Employees International Union California, who was arrested during the first day of a series of immigration raids that swept the region.
Prosecutors originally brought a felony charge of conspiracy to impede an officer against Huerta, accusing him of obstructing federal authorities from serving a search warrant at a Los Angeles workplace and arresting dozens of undocumented immigrants on June 6.
On Friday, court filings show federal prosecutors filed a lesser charge against Huerta of “obstruction resistance or opposition of a federal officer,” which carries a punishment of up to a year in federal prison. The felony he was charged with previously could have put him behind bars for up to six years.
The U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles declined to comment.
In a statement, Huerta’s attorneys, Abbe David Lowell and Marilyn Bednarski, said they would “seek the speediest trial to vindicate David.” The lawyers said that “in the four months that have passed since David’s arrest, it has become even clearer there were no grounds for charging him and certainly none for the way he was treated.”
“It’s clear that David Huerta is being singled out not for anything he did but for who he is — a life-long workers’ advocate who has been an outspoken critic of its immigration policies. These charges are a clear attempt to silence a leading voice who dared to challenge a cruel, politically driven campaign of fear,” the statement read.
The labor union previously stated that Huerta was detained “while exercising his First Amendment right to observe and document law enforcement activity.” Huerta is one of more than 60 people charged federally in the Central District of California tied to immigration protests and enforcement actions.
Two recent misdemeanor trials against protesters charged with assaulting a federal officer both ended in acquittals. Some protesters have taken plea deals.
In a statement Friday, Huerta said he is “being targeted for exercising my constitutional rights for standing up against an administration that has declared open war on working families, immigrants, and basic human dignity.”
“The baseless charges brought against me are not just about me, they are meant to intimidate anyone who dares to speak out, organize, or demand justice. I will not be silenced,” he said.
Huerta was held at the Metropolitan Detention Center in downtown Los Angeles for days, prompting thousands of union members, activists and supporters to rally for his release. California Democratic Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla also sent a letter to the Homeland Security and Justice departments demanding a review of Huerta’s arrest.
A judge ordered Huerta released in June on a $50,000 bond.
The case against Huerta centers on a June 6 workplace immigration raid at Ambiance Apparel. According to the original criminal complaint filed, Huerta arrived at the site around noon Friday, joining several other protesters.
Huerta and other protesters “appeared to be communicating with each other in a concerted effort to disrupt the law enforcement operations,” a federal agent wrote in the complaint.
The agent wrote that Huerta was yelling at and taunting officers and later sat cross-legged in front of a vehicle gate to the location where law enforcement authorities were serving a search warrant.
Huerta also “at various times stood up and paced in front of the gate, effectively preventing law enforcement vehicles from entering or exiting the premises through the gate to execute the search warrant,” the agent wrote in the affidavit.
The agent wrote that they told Huerta that if he kept blocking the Ambiance gate, he would be arrested.
According to the complaint, as a white law enforcement van tried to get through the gate, Huerta stood in its path.
Because Huerta “was being uncooperative, the officer put his hands on HUERTA in an attempt to move him out of the path of the vehicle.”
“I saw HUERTA push back, and in response, the officer pushed HUERTA to the ground,” the agent wrote. “The officer and I then handcuffed HUERTA and arrested him.”
According to a statement from SEIU-United Service Workers West, SEIU California State Council, and the Service Employees International Union, “Huerta was thrown to the ground, tackled, pepper sprayed, and detained by federal agents while exercising his constitutional rights at an ICE raid in Los Angeles.” Video of his arrest went viral.
“Despite David’s harsh treatment at the hands of law enforcement, he is now facing an unjust charge,” the statement read. “This administration has turned the military against our own people, terrorizing entire communities, and even detaining U.S. citizens who are exercising their constitutional rights to speak out.”
Acting U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, posted a photo on the social media site X of Huerta, hands behind his back, after the arrest.
“Let me be clear: I don’t care who you are — if you impede federal agents, you will be arrested and prosecuted,” Essayli wrote. “No one has the right to assault, obstruct, or interfere with federal authorities carrying out their duties.”
In an interview with Sacramento TV news oulet KCRA last month, Essayli referred to Huerta as Gov. Gavin Newsom’s “buddy” and said he “deliberately obstructed a search warrant.”
While speaking with reporters in June, Schiff said Huerta was “exercising his lawful right to be present and observe these immigration raids.”
“It’s obviously a very traumatic thing, and now that it looks like the Justice Department wants to try and make an example out of him, it’s all the more traumatic,” Schiff said. “But this is part of the Trump playbook. They selectively use the Justice Department to go after their adversaries. It’s what they do.”
A senior U.S. Justice Department official sent a letter to a lawyer for relatives of victims killed in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, asking pointed questions about a retired FBI agent’s involvement in a defamation lawsuit that led to a $1.4 billion judgment against conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.Ed Martin Jr., who leads the Justice Department’s “weaponization working group,” asked in the letter whether retired agent William Aldenberg received any financial benefits from helping to organize the lawsuit, in which he was a plaintiff along with victims’ family members.Aldenberg, like the parents and other relatives of the 20 children and six educators killed in the 2012 school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, has been the subject of false conspiracy theories spread by Jones on his “Infowars” broadcasts.Aldenberg was among the law enforcement officers who responded to the school and found the dead children. That then led to years of abuse from people who believed the shooting was a hoax, he has said. His share of the judgment totaled around $120 million.Martin sends lawyer letter asking about retired agentIn a Sept. 15 letter to Christopher Mattei, a lawyer who represents Sandy Hook families, Martin suggested he was scrutinizing Aldenberg’s role in the lawsuit.“As you may know, there are criminal laws protecting the citizens from actions by government employees who may be acting for personal benefit,” Martin wrote.Mattei responded to the letter in a text message to The Associated Press.“Thanks to the courage of the Sandy Hook families, Infowars will soon be finished,” he said, referring to the families’ efforts in court to liquidate Jones’ assets to help pay the judgment. “In his last gasps, Jones is once again harassing them, only now with the corrupt complicity of at least one DOJ official. It’s as disgusting as it is pathetic, and we will not stand for it.”The Justice Department said it had no immediate comment Tuesday.Martin, who has been examining President Donald Trump’s claims of anti-conservative bias inside the Justice Department, has sent letters to a host of targets in other, unrelated matters, seeking information or making appeals, but it’s unclear whether such requests have amounted to anything.Jones posted a copy of the letter on his X account Tuesday, saying “Breaking! The DOJ’s Task Force On Government Weaponization Against The American People Has Launched An Investigation Into The Democrat Party / FBI Directing Illegal Law-fare Against Alex Jones And Infowars.”Retired agent testified at the trialAldenberg joined the relatives of eight Sandy Hook victims in suing Jones, alleging defamation and infliction of emotional distress.Aldenberg was one of the first witnesses to testify at the trial in 2022. He broke down on the witness stand as he described entering the two classrooms where children and educators were shot.He also testified about how he and others in the community and law enforcement were targeted with threats and conspiracy theories, including one that claimed he was an actor who also pretended to be the father of a victim.Messages were left at a phone listing and email addresses listed for Aldenberg in public records.Relatives of the shooting victims testified that they were subjected to violent threats, in-person harassment and abusive comments on social media because of Jones.Martin has been serving as head of the Justice Department’s “weaponization working group” since his nomination for top federal prosecutor in Washington was pulled amid bipartisan concerns about his modest legal experience and his advocacy for Jan. 6 rioters.Attorney General Pam Bondi created the group to scrutinize matters in which conservatives have claimed they were unfairly targeted or treated.Martin was also recently named a special prosecutor to help conduct the separate mortgage fraud investigations into Democratic New York Attorney General Letitia James and U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff.In his letter to Mattei, he asked for several pieces of information and requested that the lawyer respond by Sept. 29.In the letter, Martin asks Mattei to keep the correspondence confidential because “I do not wish to litigate this in the media.” On Sept. 14, Jones posted a photo on his X account of him and Martin together, saying the two met in Washington, D.C.Jones recently asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his appeal of the $1.4 billion judgment. He also is appealing a $49 million judgment in a similar lawsuit in Texas filed by two other parents of children killed in Newtown. He has cited free speech rights, but he has acknowledged that the shooting was “100% real.”Jones claims Democrats have been targeting him for his speech.He filed for bankruptcy in late 2022. The Sandy Hook plaintiffs are now trying to liquidate Infowars’ assets in state court proceedings in Texas.
A senior U.S. Justice Department official sent a letter to a lawyer for relatives of victims killed in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, asking pointed questions about a retired FBI agent’s involvement in a defamation lawsuit that led to a $1.4 billion judgment against conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.
Ed Martin Jr., who leads the Justice Department’s “weaponization working group,” asked in the letter whether retired agent William Aldenberg received any financial benefits from helping to organize the lawsuit, in which he was a plaintiff along with victims’ family members.
Aldenberg, like the parents and other relatives of the 20 children and six educators killed in the 2012 school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, has been the subject of false conspiracy theories spread by Jones on his “Infowars” broadcasts.
Aldenberg was among the law enforcement officers who responded to the school and found the dead children. That then led to years of abuse from people who believed the shooting was a hoax, he has said. His share of the judgment totaled around $120 million.
Martin sends lawyer letter asking about retired agent
In a Sept. 15 letter to Christopher Mattei, a lawyer who represents Sandy Hook families, Martin suggested he was scrutinizing Aldenberg’s role in the lawsuit.
“As you may know, there are criminal laws protecting the citizens from actions by government employees who may be acting for personal benefit,” Martin wrote.
Mattei responded to the letter in a text message to The Associated Press.
“Thanks to the courage of the Sandy Hook families, Infowars will soon be finished,” he said, referring to the families’ efforts in court to liquidate Jones’ assets to help pay the judgment. “In his last gasps, Jones is once again harassing them, only now with the corrupt complicity of at least one DOJ official. It’s as disgusting as it is pathetic, and we will not stand for it.”
The Justice Department said it had no immediate comment Tuesday.
Martin, who has been examining President Donald Trump’s claims of anti-conservative bias inside the Justice Department, has sent letters to a host of targets in other, unrelated matters, seeking information or making appeals, but it’s unclear whether such requests have amounted to anything.
Jones posted a copy of the letter on his X account Tuesday, saying “Breaking! The DOJ’s Task Force On Government Weaponization Against The American People Has Launched An Investigation Into The Democrat Party / FBI Directing Illegal Law-fare Against Alex Jones And Infowars.”
Retired agent testified at the trial
Aldenberg joined the relatives of eight Sandy Hook victims in suing Jones, alleging defamation and infliction of emotional distress.
Aldenberg was one of the first witnesses to testify at the trial in 2022. He broke down on the witness stand as he described entering the two classrooms where children and educators were shot.
He also testified about how he and others in the community and law enforcement were targeted with threats and conspiracy theories, including one that claimed he was an actor who also pretended to be the father of a victim.
Messages were left at a phone listing and email addresses listed for Aldenberg in public records.
Relatives of the shooting victims testified that they were subjected to violent threats, in-person harassment and abusive comments on social media because of Jones.
Martin has been serving as head of the Justice Department’s “weaponization working group” since his nomination for top federal prosecutor in Washington was pulled amid bipartisan concerns about his modest legal experience and his advocacy for Jan. 6 rioters.
Attorney General Pam Bondi created the group to scrutinize matters in which conservatives have claimed they were unfairly targeted or treated.
Martin was also recently named a special prosecutor to help conduct the separate mortgage fraud investigations into Democratic New York Attorney General Letitia James and U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff.
In his letter to Mattei, he asked for several pieces of information and requested that the lawyer respond by Sept. 29.
In the letter, Martin asks Mattei to keep the correspondence confidential because “I do not wish to litigate this in the media.” On Sept. 14, Jones posted a photo on his X account of him and Martin together, saying the two met in Washington, D.C.
Jones recently asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his appeal of the $1.4 billion judgment. He also is appealing a $49 million judgment in a similar lawsuit in Texas filed by two other parents of children killed in Newtown. He has cited free speech rights, but he has acknowledged that the shooting was “100% real.”
Jones claims Democrats have been targeting him for his speech.
He filed for bankruptcy in late 2022. The Sandy Hook plaintiffs are now trying to liquidate Infowars’ assets in state court proceedings in Texas.
The FBI reportedly recorded Donald Trump’s border czar Tom Homan accepting $50,000 in cash from undercover agents who were posing as business contractors last year.
A new report from MSNBC on Saturday reveals that the agents recorded Homan, six weeks before the 2024 election, allegedly promising to assist in securing government contracts across the border security industry during Trump’s second term.
Six sources familiar with the matter told MSNBC that the FBI and justice department – then run by Joe Biden’s administration – had intended to hold off and assess whether Homan would follow through on his alleged promises after he was appointed as Trump’s border czar. However, the investigation stalled after Trump took office, and in recent weeks, officials appointed by Trump decided to close the case, according to MSNBC.
According to the sources, a justice department official who was appointed by Trump called the case a “deep state” investigation.
In a separate statement to MSNBC, the FBI director, Kash Patel, and the deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche, said: “This matter originated under the previous administration and was subjected to a full review by FBI agents and justice department prosecutors. They found no credible evidence of any criminal wrongdoing.”
They added: “The Department’s resources must remain focused on real threats to the American people, not baseless investigations. As a result, the investigation has been closed.”
The White House deputy press secretary, Abigail Jackson, told MSNBC the investigation was “blatantly political”. Jackson added that it was “yet another example of how the Biden Department of Justice was using its resources to target President Trump’s allies rather than investigate real criminals and the millions of illegal aliens who flooded our country”.
Homan was captured on video accepting $50,000 in cash at a meeting spot in Texas on 20 September 2024, according to an internal summary of the case reviewed by MSNBC and sources who spoke to the outlet.
Four sources familiar with the matter told MSNBC that multiple federal officials believed they had a solid criminal case against Homan for conspiracy to commit bribery. However, since Homan was not a public official at the time he accepted the money and Trump had not yet become president, his actions did not meet the criteria for a standard bribery charge.
Officials eventually decided to continue monitoring Homan once he joined Trump’s second presidential administration. MSNBC reports that officials had been looking at four potential criminal charges including conspiracy, bribery and two kinds of fraud, before Trump’s new justice department shut down the investigation.
Homan, who was previously the acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) during Trump’s first term, was appointed by Trump to run what he has described as the “biggest deportation” project the US has ever seen. Prior to his appointment as border czar, Homan was a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation, the Washington DC-based thinktank behind Project 2025.
After the MSNBC report was published, Adam Schiff, a California Democratic senator and a former federal prosecutor, wrote on social media: “Border Czar Tom Homan was caught by the FBI accepting bribes – on camera – to deliver government contracts in exchange for $50,000 in cash. Pam Bondi knew. Kash Patel knew. Emil Bove knew. And they made the investigation go away. A corrupt attempt to conceal brazen graft.”
In an angry outburst on his social media platform on Saturday night, Trump appeared to direct his attorney general, Pam Bondi, to appoint a White House aide, Lindsey Halligan, interim US attorney for the eastern district of Virginia, so that she could seek criminal charges against Schiff and another of the president’s political rivals, New York’s attorney general, Letitia James. Trump has demanded that both Schiff and James be prosecuted on mortgage fraud claims both deny.
On Friday, the prosecutor who was serving as the district’s interim US attorney, Erik Siebert, was forced out, reportedly for refusing to bring charges against James, due to a lack of evidence. Trump insisted on Saturday that he had fired Siebert for political reasons. Late Saturday, Trump announced that he would nominate Halligan, his former personal lawyer and a one-time contestant in the Miss Colorado USA beauty pageant now serving as a special assistant to the president, to replace Siebert.
U.S. Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff have sent a letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth requesting a detailed breakdown of military deployments to Los Angeles amid recent immigration enforcement protests in the city.
The two California Democrats wrote Monday that they wanted to know how thousands of National Guard troops and U.S. Marines were specifically used, whether and how they engaged in any law enforcement activity and how much the deployments have cost taxpayers to date.
The deployments were made over the objections of Gov. Gavin Newsom, L.A. Mayor Karen Bass and other local officials, and sparked a lawsuit by the state alleging they were illegal. The letter came just hours before a federal judge agreed with the state in a ruling Tuesday that Padilla and Schiff both cheered.
Padilla and Schiff wrote that the deployments were unnecessary and that greater detail was needed in light of similar operations now being launched or threatened in other American cities.
“The use of the U.S. military to assist in or otherwise support immigration operations remains inappropriate, potentially a violation of the law, and harmful to the relationship between the U.S. public and the U.S. military,” they wrote.
The Department of Defense declined to comment on the letter to The Times, saying it would “respond directly” to Padilla and Schiff.
President Trump ordered the federalization of some 4,100 National Guard troops in California in June, as L.A. protests erupted over his administration’s immigration policies. Some 700 Marines were also deployed to the city. Most of those forces have since departed, but Padilla and Schiff said 300 Guard troops remain activated.
Trump, Hegseth and other administration leaders have previously defended the deployments as necessary to restore law and order in L.A., defend federal buildings and protect federal immigration agents as they conduct immigration raids in local communities opposed to such enforcement efforts.
Under questioning from members of Congress at the start of the deployments in June, Hegseth and other Defense officials estimated that the mission would last 60 days and that basic necessities such as travel, housing and food for the troops would cost about $134 million. However, the administration has not provided updated details as the operation has continued.
Padilla and Schiff asked for specific totals on the number of California Guard troops and Marines deployed to L.A., and details as to which units they were drawn from and whether any out-of-state Guard personnel were brought in. They also asked whether any other military personnel were deployed to L.A., and how many civilian employees from the Department of Defense were assigned to the L.A. operation.
The senators asked for a description of the “specific missions” carried out by the different units deployed to the city, and for a breakdown of military personnel who directly supported Department of Homeland Security teams, which would include Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. They also asked which units were assigned to provide security at federal sites or were “placed on stand-by status outside of the immediate protest or immigration enforcement areas.”
They asked for “the number of times and relevant detail for any cases in which [Defense] personnel made arrests, detained any individuals, otherwise exercised law enforcement authorities, or exercised use of lethal force during the operation.”
They also asked for the total cost of all of the work to the Department of Defense and for a breakdown of costs by operation, maintenance, personnel or other accounts, and asked whether any funding used in the operation was diverted from other programs.
Padilla and Schiff requested that the Department of Defense provide the information by Sept. 12.
Unless it is “expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress,” the use of military personnel for civilian law enforcement on U.S. soil is barred by law under the Posse Comitatus Act. The 1878 law applies to U.S. Marines and to Guard troops who, like those in L.A., have been federalized.
In its lawsuit, California argued the deployments were a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. In response, the Trump administration argued that the president has the legal authority to deploy federal troops to protect federal property and personnel, such as ICE agents.
On Tuesday, a federal judge ruled for the state, finding that the deployments did violate the Posse Comitatus Act. The judge placed his injunction on hold for 10 days, and the Trump administration is expected to appeal.
Schiff said Trump’s “goal was not to ensure safety, but to create a spectacle,” and that the ruling affirmed those actions were “unlawful and unjustified.”
Padilla said the ruling “confirmed what we knew all along: Trump broke the law in his effort to turn service members into his own national police force.”
WASHINGTON — Behind a White House effort to saddle President Trump’s political foes with accusations of mortgage fraud is a 37-year-old home construction executive with a deep partisan past.
Bill Pulte, a Florida native, rose in Trump’s orbit toward the end of his first term. After courting Trump for years on social media and through generous donations, he now runs the Federal Housing Finance Agency — a perch that has allowed him to target prominent figures who have crossed the president.
In the last five months, Pulte has referred three claims of mortgage fraud against Trump’s foes to the Justice Department, leveled against Letitia James, the attorney general of New York; Adam Schiff, the Democratic senator from California; and this week, Lisa Cook, a governor on the board of the Federal Reserve.
Each has denied wrongdoing. Trump announced on Monday night that he was moving to fire Cook.
It is an unusual role for a director of the FHFA, which regulates Fannie Mae — the nation’s largest company by assets — and Freddie Mac. The two mortgage financing organizations, which support nearly half of the U.S. residential mortgage market, were taken over by the FHFA during the 2008 economic crisis.
The grandson of one of Michigan’s wealthiest and most prolific homebuilders, Pulte made a name for himself on Twitter in 2019 with public cash giveaways to individuals in need. He dubbed himself the “inventor of Twitter philanthropy,” vowing to give two cars away in exchange for a Trump retweet that year, which he received. He subsequently built a following of over 3 million.
Records show Pulte donated substantially to Trump, the Republican National Committee and related super PACs leading up to the 2024 election.
Pulte’s letters to Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi have been tightly and cautiously written. But his social media posts, celebrating the targeted attacks, have not.
“Trump becomes the first president ever to remove a sitting Federal Reserve governor,” he wrote on X, between retweets of right-wing commentators praising the move. “Mortgage fraud can carry up to 30 years in prison.”
In another post on X, quoting a CNN headline, Pulte wrote that Trump’s firing of Cook was “escalating his battle against the central bank” — seeming to acknowledge that targeting Cook was motivated by Trump’s ongoing grievances with Fed leadership.
Cook’s firing is legally dubious, and her attorney, Abbe Lowell, said in a statement that Cook plans on suing the administration while continuing to perform her duties for the Fed. Lowell also represents James in her defense against the Justice Department case.
While the Supreme Court ruled in May that Trump may fire individuals from independent federal agencies, the justices singled out the Fed as an exception, calling it a “uniquely structured, quasi-private entity.” The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 states that the president may fire a member of its leadership only “for cause.”
But cause has not been definitively established to fire Cook, with Pulte writing in his letter to Bondi that the Fed governor had only “potentially” committed mortgage fraud, accusing her of falsifying bank documents and property records to acquire more favorable loan terms.
Pulte has accused Cook of listing two homes — in Ann Arbor, Mich., and in Atlanta — as her primary addresses within two weeks of purchasing them through financing. Cook said she would “take any questions about my financial history seriously” and was “gathering the accurate information to answer any legitimate questions and provide the facts.”
Pulte’s other accusations, against James and Schiff, have been similarly superficial, publicly accusing individuals of potential criminality before a full, independent investigation can take place.
And whether those investigations will be impartial is far from clear. Earlier this month, Bondi appointed Ed Martin, a conspiracy theorist who supported the “Stop the Steal” movement after Joe Biden’s election victory over Trump in 2020, as a special prosecutor to investigate the James and Schiff cases.
Pulte accused James — who successfully accused Trump of financial fraud in a civil suit last year — of falsifying bank statements and property records to secure more favorable loan terms for homes in Virginia and New York. He made similar claims weeks later about Schiff, who maintains residences in California and the suburbs of Washington, D.C.
Schiff, who led a House impeachment of Trump during the president’s first term and has remained one of his most vocal and forceful political adversaries since joining the Senate, dismissed the president’s claims as a “baseless attempt at political retribution.”
A spokesperson for Schiff said he has always been transparent about owning two homes, in part to be able to raise his children near him in Washington, and has always followed the law — and advice from House counsel — in arranging his mortgages.
In making his claims, Trump cited an investigation by the Fannie Mae “Financial Crimes Division” as his source.
A memorandum reviewed by The Times from Fannie Mae investigators to Pulte does not accuse Schiff of mortgage fraud. It noted that investigators had been asked by the FHFA inspector general’s office for loan files and “any related investigative or quality control documentation” for Schiff’s homes.
Investigators said they found that Schiff at various points identified both his home in Potomac, Md., and a Burbank unit he also owns as his primary residence. As a result, they concluded that Schiff and his wife, Eve, “engaged in a sustained pattern of possible occupancy misrepresentation” on their home loans between 2009 and 2020.
The investigators did not say they had concluded that a crime had been committed, nor did they mention the word “fraud” in the memo.
“Everything generated by AI ultimately originates from a human creative source, says Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, SAG-AFTRA National Executive Director and Chief Negotiator, of a new bill proposed today by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA). “That’s why human creative content—intellectual property—must be protected. SAG-AFTRA fully supports the Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act, as this legislation is an important step in ensuring technology serves people and not the other way around,”
Deep into his race to be California’s new junior Senator, Schiff introduced the Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act into the 118th Congress (read it here) Tuesday. If passed by the House and Senate and signed by President Joe Biden, the succinct act would require companies and corporations that use copyrighted works in the training of their generative AI systems training datasets to submit a public notice with the Register of Copyrights.
AI has the potential to change our economy, our political system, and our day-to-day life in dramatic and potentially disruptive ways.
My Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act will further innovation by safeguarding the contributions of creators, ensuring that they are aware of…
In short, before you put that AI created material out there, you’ve got to pull back the veil and reveal where you scooped up the info and datasets from. Now, with its $5,000 civil penalty for violations, the bill doesn’t exactly hit the tech overlords and studios that hard where it counts.
However, with the fears and harsh realities that AI itself generates among below-the-line workers and creators, the fact is the introduction of the legislation alone sees Schiff tossing some blue meat to his base. In a Senate bid that is his to lose against a Republican challenger he promoted, Schiff, who is commonly known as the Congressman from Hollywood for the number of studios in and around his Burbank district, is putting an issue of vital importance to unions and guild members on the table.
The use and implications of AI was a very big part of last year’s strikes by the WGA and SAG-AFTRA. Despite the handwringing of those who predicted it would sink any deal, protections around AI for guild members ended up being a major part of the agreements the scribes and the actors came to with the studios and streamers.
Now with the long anticipated introduction of Schiff’s new bill , leadership is responding again.
“This bill is an important first step in addressing the unprecedented and unauthorized use of copyrighted materials to train generative AI systems,” states WGA West chief Meredith Stiehm. “Greater transparency and guardrails around AI are necessary to protect writers and other creators.”
Stiehm’s East Coast partner, WGA East president Lisa Takeuchi Cullen added:“The Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act is an important piece of legislation that will ensure companies use this new and rapidly advancing technology in ethical and transparent ways. Given the scope and potential threat of AI, enforceable regulations are urgently needed to keep companies from implementing this technology in the shadows, without people’s consent or knowledge.”
“The Directors Guild of America commends this commonsense legislation, which is an important first step toward enabling filmmakers to protect their intellectual property from the potential harms caused by generative AI,” says DGA president Lesli Linka Glatter. “We thank Representative Schiff for championing these rights that will protect filmmakers and the entire creative community.”
In the midst of their own negotiations right now with the AMPTP, in which AI is a distinct priority, IATSE goes straight for the bottom line when it comes to Schiff’s bill.
“The International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees commends Rep. Adam Schiff for introducing the Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act,” IATSE president Matt Loeb declares. “Entertainment workers must be fairly compensated when their work is used to train, develop or generate new works by AI systems. This legislation will ensure there is appropriate transparency of generative AI training sets, thereby enabling IATSE workers to enforce their rights.”
Since the contract agreements that ended the months-long WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes of last year, a number of guild brass have made it very clear that legislative solutions to the unmitigated growth of AI are the next logical step. To that end, SAG-AFTA and others have already been working the halls of Congress to see bills like Schiff’s hit the floor of the GOP controlled House.
“The threats of AI to workers is a bipartisan issue, both sides know it can hurt their constituents,” one union leader said to Deadline after Schiff’s bill was introduced today. “I’ve heard concerns from almost as many Republican members as I have Democrats,” he added.
Schiff’s bill follows up on the momentum began by President Biden’s Executive Order on AI from last October and the subsequent three-pillar strategy Vice President Kamala Harris and the administration rolled out late last month.
On a state level, there are two bills moving through the Assembly in Sacramento that also hope to curb AI’s reach and power, especially in relation to Hollywood.
Currently in the early stages of the legislative process, the SAG-AFTA backed and MPA opposed AB 2602 would cement protections for performers that digital recreations of them or their work could only be used with permission and compensation. Another bill, AB 1836, would put contextual and creatives limits on the AI or digital use of deceased performers, from a Sidney Poitier to a Marilyn Monroe, Elvis, a Heath Ledger and many more. At its core, AB 1836 would make use of a dead star’s likeness and performance only allowable if the 21st century use is within the context of what the performer actually did when they were alive – – AKA no Jane Wyman and Marilyn tag-team wrestling.
As Adam Schiff said today of the Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act: “This is about respecting creativity in the age of AI and marrying technological progress with fairness.”
AP Projection: Adam Schiff, Steve Garvey advance to November election to fill Feinstein’s seat
Updated: 11:31 PM PST Mar 5, 2024
CALIFORNIA. AND THANKS FOR JOINING US. AS WE COME INTO OUR FINAL HALF HOUR OF THIS PRIMARY ELECTION NIGHT COVERAGE, WE’RE GOING TO TRY AND WRAP UP AS MUCH AS WE CAN. AS WE KNOW, THE VOTES ARE STILL GOING TO BE COMING IN EVEN AFTER TONIGHT, BUT WE’RE GOING TO TRY AND GIVE YOU A CLEARER PICTURE AS WHERE THINGS STAND RIGHT NOW WITH THE ELECTIONS. LET’S START WITH THE RACE FOR PRESIDENT. AND IT’S BEEN CALLED IN BOTH CATEGORIES, AS IT HAS IN ALL THE OTHERS. SUPER TUESDAY PRIMARY STATES. DEMOCRAT. PRESIDENT. DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT. I SHOULD SAY, UM, GOT A COMMANDING LEAD 90% THERE. CALIFORNIA HAS. 100, 495 DELEGATES AT STAKE. SO THAT IS A QUARTER OF THE NUMBER THAT HE NEEDS IN ORDER TO PICK UP THE NOMINATION ON THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE. LET’S CHECK IN NOW WITH THE REPUBLICANS. PRESIDENT TRUMP ALSO WITH A STRONG LEAD, 76% TO NIKKI HALEY’S 20%, UH, ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE, 50 PLUS ONE GETS ALL THE DELEGATES. SO THAT’S 169 THAT TRUMP PICKS UP HERE IN CALIFORNIA. AND THE TOP TWO VOTE GETTERS IN THE U.S. SENATE RACE TONIGHT, ADAM SCHIFF AND STEVE GARVEY. THEY WILL MOVE ON TO THE GENERAL ELECTION. KATIE PORTER AND BARBARA LEE, UH, BOTH OF THE PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS IN THIS RACE FALLING SHORT. SO, UH, IT WAS AN INTERESTING NIGHT AS, UH, ADAM SCHIFF DECIDED TO TAKE TO THE STAGE FOR WHAT WAS GOING TO BE A VICTORY SPEECH. YES, A PROTEST RIGHT AT HIS OWN CAMPAIGN PARTY. LET’S CHECK IN WITH ANDREA FLORES, WHO IS AT THAT SITE OF THE PARTY IN LOS ANGELES. AND, YEAH, IT WAS PRETTY CHAOTIC FOR A WHILE. IT WAS VERY CHAOTIC. I FEEL LIKE IT’S IT’S REALLY BEEN A ROLLER COASTER OF EMOTIONS. IF YOU WERE HERE TONIGHT IN HOLLYWOOD AT THE AVALON RIGHT OFF OF THE THE HOLLYWOOD WALK OF FAME, IT STARTED OFF WITH SUCH AN UPBEAT MOOD, UPBEAT TONE, AND THEN THINGS QUICKLY TOOK A TURN DURING CONGRESSMAN SCHIFF’S COMMENTS HERE AS HE WAS THANKING HIS SUPPORTERS. OF COURSE, THOSE REMARKS WERE DISRUPTED BY PROTESTERS HERE CALLING FOR A CEASE FIRE IN GAZA, AND THEY WERE VERY OUTSPOKEN AGAINST THE WAR BETWEEN ISRAEL AND HAMAS. AND THAT TOOK PLACE REALLY JUST RIGHT HERE. JUST STEPS AWAY FROM WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW. IT WAS DOWN IN THE THICK OF WHERE ALL THE SUPPORTERS WERE STANDING. AND REALLY, IT SEEMED LIKE A LOT OF THOSE, UH, PROTESTERS INFILTRATED, UH, SEEMINGLY A GROUP OF SUPPORTERS HERE. AND REALLY TURNED THE NIGHT UPSIDE DOWN. THINGS ARE QUIETING DOWN NOW. OF COURSE, CREWS ARE HERE BREAKING DOWN, AND MOST OF THE SUPPORTERS HAVE SINCE LEFT. BUT I DO WANT TO MENTION, IF WE TAKE A LOOK HERE AT THE BALCONY, UH, SCHIFF DID MAKE A RETURN HERE. THIS WAS AN AREA THAT WAS KIND OF A MORE VIP ALL ACCESS AREA THAT WE DID NOT HAVE ACCESS TO, BUT IT DOES LOOK LIKE HE HAD A MOMENT TO THINK. SOME SOME CLOSE SUPPORTERS THERE. SO DID MAKE A QUICK RETURN AND THEN EXITED. WE WERE NOT ABLE TO GET ANY ONE ON ONE SOUND WITH CONGRESSWOMAN SCHIFF TODAY. BUT AGAIN, WE WANT TO SHOW YOU THIS MOMENT WHEN THAT DISRUPTION BROKE OUT. SO YOU HAD A CHANCE. YOU HAD A CHANCE TO MEET MY WONDERFUL WIFE, EVE. AND AGAIN, THIS IS JUST A VIDEO OF WHEN THAT DISRUPTION TOOK PLACE. I THINK TAKING A LOT OF PEOPLE BY SURPRISE. UH, VERY CALM ATMOSPHERE TURNED INTO CHAOS VERY QUICKLY. A LOT OF HEATED EXCHANGE BETWEEN SCHIFF SUPPORTERS AND PROTESTERS HERE. BUT HERE’S WHAT HE HAD TO SAY IN THE REMARKS THAT HE WAS ABLE TO GET OUT. GRASSROOTS TEAM. MY GREAT, GREAT GRATITUDE TO ALL OF MY WONDERFUL SUPPORTERS. I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE RIGHT OF OUR PROTESTERS AND I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU ALL AND ONWARD TO VICTORY IN NOVEMBER. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, EVERYBODY. AND AGAIN, WE WANT TO MENTION ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO WAS ON STAGE WITH CONGRESSMAN SCHIFF TONIGHT WAS FORMER L.A. MAYOR ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA HAS BEEN VERY INVOLVED IN THE L.A. COMMUNITY AND IN CALIFORNIA POLITICS AS A WHOLE. AND EVEN AT THE, UH, THE NATIONAL LEVEL. AND WE ASKED WHAT HE THOUGHT ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED BETWEEN BEEN THE PROTESTERS HERE AND THE SUPPORTERS EARLIER TONIGHT, ISSUES OF LIFE AND DEATH. THEY’RE IMPORTANT ISSUES. BUT, YOU KNOW, YOU IF WE WANT PEOPLE TO LISTEN TO US, STOP SCREAMING. SO AGAIN, WORDS FROM FORMER L.A. MAYOR ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA AND, UH, AGAIN, AS AS THINGS START TO WRAP UP HERE, I THINK THE BIGGEST THING AND THE THING THAT WE HEARD FROM VOTERS EARLIER TODAY WHEN WE WERE AT A VOTING CENTER IN GLENDALE, WHICH IS, UH, CONGRESSMAN SCHIFF’S DISTRICT, THE 30TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT IS THAT VOTERS ARE REALLY GOING INTO THE ELECTIONS WANTING TO KNOW WHERE CANDIDATES STAND ON ON THE WAR BETWEEN ISRAEL AND HAMAS. AND SOME OF THEM SAID THAT WILL DRIVE THEIR DECISION. THAT’S GOING TO DRIVE WHO THEY VOTE FOR. SO IT’LL BE INTERESTING TO SEE HOW THE VOTERS TAKE THAT INFORMATION AND THE INFORMATION THAT CANDIDATES ARE PUTTING OUT THEIR STANCE ABOUT THE ONGOING WAR BETWEEN ISRAEL AND HAMAS, AND HOW THAT WILL INFLUENCE THE NEXT FEW MONTHS. AND AS WE HEAD INTO NOVEMBER, WE’LL SEND IT BACK TO YOU LIVE FROM HOLLYWOOD. ALL RIGHT, ANDREA, THANK YOU. WE SHOULD POINT OUT BOTH OF THOSE CANDIDATES WERE PRETTY CLEAR ON THE RECORD THAT THEY SUPPORT ISRAEL’S RIGHT TO DEFEND ITSELF. AND BOTH WERE, YOU KNOW, UH, TOOK STRONG POSITIONS ON THAT. WELL, TO THAT POINT, TALKING ABOUT STEVE GARVEY AND ADAM SCHIFF. AND WE’RE GOING TO GO TO THE STEVE GARVEY HEADQUARTERS RIGHT NOW. WE’RE MICHELLE BANDUR WAS EARLIER TODAY AS STEVE GARVEY, UH, ALSO GAVE HIS VICTORY SPEECH IN PALM DESERT. STEVE GARVEY AND HIS SUPPORTERS HAVE GONE HOME WITH A VICTORY UNDER THEIR BELT, THANKING CALIFORNIA VOTERS FOR BRINGING STEVE GARVEY TO THE NOVEMBER GENERAL ELECTION AS THE REPUBLICAN IN THIS RACE FOR THE US SENATE SEAT. HE USED A LOT OF BASEBALL JARGON HERE TONIGHT, SAYING HE IS AS EXCITED AS HE WAS IN SEPTEMBER OF 69 WHEN HE FIRST PUT ON THAT DODGERS UNIFORM. UM, GOT UP INTO THE BATTER’S BOX AND LOOKED AROUND SAYING THAT THIS IS WHAT HARD WORK AND DEDICATION LOOKS LIKE. AND HE SAYS THAT’S WHAT HE HAS IN STORE FOR THE NEXT FEW MONTHS, PUTTING HIS HARD WORK AND DEDICATION IN TO WIN THAT SENATE SEAT. WELL, KNOW THIS IT AIN’T OVER TILL IT’S OVER. WE’VE GOT TO THE STARTING LINE. AND THAT QUOTE YOU ALL KNOW IS TRUE IN BASEBALL AND IT’S TRUE IN POLITICS. AND MY OPPONENT HAS BEEN ADVERTISING THAT HE HE WANTS ME AND HE’S MISTAKING KINDNESS FOR WEAKNESS. REMEMBER THAT OLD SAYING BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU ASK FOR. WELL HE’S LIKE THE PITCHER THAT THROWS ME 70 MILE AN HOUR FASTBALLS. AND THEN WATCHES ME RUN AROUND THE BASES. I CAN’T THANK YOU ENOUGH. ALL OF YOU HERE TONIGHT THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA AND THROUGHOUT THIS GREAT COUNTRY. GARVEY SAID HE COULD HAVE EASILY JUST ENJOYED HIS RETIREMENT, ENJOYED HIS LIFE WITH HIS FAMILY. BUT HE SAID ABOUT SEVEN MONTHS AGO, HE WOKE UP AND TURNED ON THE NEWS AND SAID HE WATCHED AN IMPLODING WASHINGTON AND POLITICIANS WHO WERE FAILING THE VOTERS. SO HE SAID HE HAD TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT. REPORTING FROM PALM DESERT MICHELLE BANDUR KCRA 3 NEWS. AND AS WE’RE COVERING THE SENATE ELECTION, WE ALSO WANT TO GO TO LYSEE MITRI, WHO HAS BEEN COVERING THE KATY PORTER CAMPAIGN. THE END OF THAT CONGRESSWOMAN’S CAREER. FOR NOW. THAT PARTY WAS IN LONG BEACH. THINGS CLEARED OUT HERE AT THE BUNGALOW IN LONG BEACH, WHERE CONGRESSWOMAN KATIE PORTER WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE THAT ELECTION PARTY. OBVIOUSLY A LITTLE BIT DISAPPOINTING FOR HER TONIGHT. YOU CAN SEE THE STAGE THAT’S BEING DISMANTLED RIGHT NOW WHERE CONGRESSWOMAN PORTER SPOKE. SHE SAID, WE KNOW WE WILL COME UP SHORT. AND SHE REALLY SEEMED TO BE ATTRIBUTING THAT TO THE ADVERTISING AGAINST HER AND THOSE ADS THAT WERE ELEVATING THE REPUBLICAN FRONTRUNNER AGAINST HER. GARVEY. SO SHE SAID, BASICALLY, THE OPPONENT THREW EVERY PLAYBOOK AT US THAT THEY COULD TO TRY TO KNOCK US OFF OUR FEET. BUT SHE SAID, I’M STILL STANDING IN HIGH HEELS. TAKE A LISTEN. SO THE MOST IMPORTANT THING I WANT TO SAY TONIGHT IS THANK YOU, BECAUSE OF YOU, WE HAD THE ESTABLISHMENT RUNNING SCARED WITH STANDING 3 TO 1 IN TV, SPENDING AND AN ONSLAUGHT OF BILLIONAIRES WHO SPENT MILLIONS IONS PEDDLING LIES AND OUR OPPONENTS SPENDING MORE TO BOOST THE REPUBLICAN THAN PROMOTING HIS OWN CAMPAIGN. YOU GOT TO BE KIDDING ME. I WANT TO THANK EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU REALLY. EACH AND EVERY ONE, ONE OF YOU, FOR THE SUPPORT THAT YOU HAVE SHOWN ME IN THIS CAMPAIGN. AND OVER THE YEARS. AND WE DID TRY TO SPEAK WITH HER AFTER THAT CONCESSION SPEECH, BUT SHE KIND OF MADE HER WAY FROM THE STAGE, TALKED TO HER SUPPORTERS. SHE TOOK PICTURES. SHE GAVE HUGS. WE WERE TOLD SHE WOULD SPEAK TO THOSE SUPPORTERS FIRST, AND THEN SHE WAS QUICKLY USHERED OUT AND WE WERE TOLD SHE WAS DONE FOR THE NIGHT. REPORTING HERE IN LONG BEACH, LYSEE MITRI. KCRA THREE NEWS. YOU KNOW, AS WE’RE LOOKING AT THIS BIG TRANSITION PERIOD WITH CALIFORNIA’S TWO U.S. SENATORS UNTIL RECENTLY, FOR DECADES, WE HAD TWO WOMEN WHO WERE ELECTED WHEN WHAT WAS CALLED THE YEAR OF THE WOMEN, BARBARA BOXER AND DIANNE FEINSTEIN. POWERHOUSE. UM, NOW WE HAVE ALEX PADILLA AND NOW THE SENIOR SENATOR POSITION AND TWO MEN ADVANCING TO NOVEMBER. SO THAT’S A BIG CHANGE FOR OUR STATE. THIS IS A DIFFERENT DYNAMIC. YES. IT IS SORT OF A TREND THAT WE’RE SEEING. IT’S SORT OF THE YEAR OF THE MAN HERE IN CALIFORNIA. I MEAN, NOT ONLY THERE IN CONGRESS, BUT ALSO RIGHT HERE AT HOME. WE HAVE THE GOVERNOR, WHO IS A MAN, THE LEADER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY, WHO IS NOW A MAN, THE LEADER OF THE STATE SENATE, WHO IS NOW A MAN. SO JUST IT MUST BE THE YEAR OF THE MAN. OKAY. IT’S ABOUT TIME. I GUESS I’M NOT GOING TO SAY ANYTHING. UM, NO, BUT JUST JUST YOUR THOUGHTS ON. I MEAN, JUST SEEING WHAT WE HAVE NOW SET UP FOR THIS SENATE RACE. I MEAN, IT WAS, I THINK THE YOU KNOW, BIGGEST, MOST INTERESTING THING TONIGHT WAS THAT THIS COULD HAVE BEEN A REAL VICTORY MOMENT FOR ADAM SCHIFF. YOU KNOW, HE’S LOOKING AHEAD CRUISING TO NOVEMBER AND WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN THIS VERY SWEET MOMENT FOR HIM WAS OBVIOUSLY KIND OF TRAMPLED ON BY THIS POLITICAL CONTROVERSY. I THINK IT SPEAKS TO HOW IMPASSIONED AND CONTENTIOUS THIS POLITICAL MOMENT IS AROUND THE ISSUE OF THE WAR IN GAZA, AND HE’S GOING TO HAVE TO PROBABLY ADDRESS THAT ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL FOR MONTHS TO COME. DEFINITELY. BUT YOU LOOK AT THAT ISSUE FOR THESE TWO PARTICULAR CANDIDATES, AND THAT’S ONE THING THEY ACTUALLY HAVE IN COMMON. OH, YEAH. NO, ABSOLUTELY. I MEAN, I THINK THERE’S VERY FEW CANDIDATES OUT THERE RIGHT NOW WHO ARE CALLING FOR CEASEFIRE. AND THAT’S PROBABLY WHY YOU’RE SEEING PROTESTERS GETTING MORE AND MORE AGGRESSIVE ABOUT THEIR TACTICS, TRYING TO CATCH PEOPLE’S ATTENTION, TRYING TO GET THEIR MESSAGE THROUGH. BECAUSE DESPITE MONTHS AND MONTHS OF WAR, PEOPLE LIKE ADAM SCHIFF HAVE NOT REALLY SHIFTED THEIR POSITION AT ALL. OKAY. THANKS, ALEXI. ALL RIGHT. WELL, IN ADDITION TO CALIFORNIA, OF COURSE, MORE THAN A DOZEN STATES HOLDING ELECTIONS TODAY AND WHAT WE NOW CALL SUPER TUESDAY WITH NEARLY A THIRD OF ALL POSSIBLE DELEGATES IS UP FOR GRABS. OF COURSE, A MAJOR NIGHT WHEN IT COMES TO THE WHITE HOUSE. SO LET’S GO TO TY RIGHT NOW. HE’S GOT THE WINS AND LOSSES. YEAH. BOTH PRESIDENT BIDEN AND FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP NOW HAVE MORE THAN HALF THE DELEGATES NEEDED TO WIN THEIR PARTY’S NOMINATION. DONALD TRUMP IS PROJECTED TO WIN CALIFORNIA, AS WELL AS ALABAMA, ARKANSAS, COLORADO, MASSACHUSETTS, MAINE, MINNESOTA, NORTH CAROLINA, OKLAHOMA, TENNESSEE, TEXAS AND VIRGINIA. BUT IT WAS NOT A CLEAN SWEEP. NIKKI HALEY IS PROJECTED TO WIN THE VERMONT PRIMARY, AND SHE WON JUST MORE THAN HALF THE VOTES IN VERMONT, WHICH IS AN OPEN PRIMARY. THAT MEANS INDEPENDENTS AND DEMOCRATS ARE ALLOWED TO VOTE IN THE PRIMARY, ALONG WITH REPUBLICANS. SO. SO HERE’S A LOOK AT THE UPDATED REPUBLICAN DELEGATE COUNT. FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP NOW HAS NEARLY A THOUSAND DELEGATES. HE’S MORE THAN HALFWAY TO WINNING THE PARTY’S NOMINATION. HALEY HAS 92. IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, PRESIDENT BIDEN IS WINNING WITH EVERY STATE HOLDING ELECTIONS TODAY, INCLUDING CALIFORNIA. BUT THE PRESIDENT LOST THE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS IN AMERICAN SAMOA WITH LESS THAN 100 PEOPLE VOTING THERE. BUSINESSMAN JASON PALMER WAS DECLARED THE WINNER, GAINING SIX DELEGATES. SO EVEN WITH THE LOSS, THE PRESIDENT NOW HAS MORE THAN 1500 DELEGATES. JUST A FEW HUNDRED DELEGATES AWAY FROM THAT MAGIC NUMBER. 1968. PRESIDENT BIDEN DID NOT ATTEND ANY POLITICAL EVENTS TONIGHT. INSTEAD, HIS OFFICE SAYS HE WAS PREPARING TO DELIVER HIS THIRD STATE OF THE NATIO
AP Projection: Adam Schiff, Steve Garvey advance to November election to fill Feinstein’s seat
Updated: 11:31 PM PST Mar 5, 2024
One of two U.S. senators representing California could be either a Democrat or Republican as the two frontrunners who emerged are Adam Schiff and Steve Garvey.With the top-two system, the two top vote-getters regardless of political affiliation advance to the November general election.Democrats are expected to easily hold the Senate seat in November, a relief for the party as it seeks to defend a narrow majority. But the campaign still represents a new era in California politics, which was long dominated by Feinstein and a handful of other veteran politicians.Schiff gained national attention as a leading antagonist to former President Donald Trump during his years in the White House. He was a leading voice during Trump’s two impeachments, prompting House Republicans to take the extraordinary step of censuring him after they gained control of the chamber.That only deepened his appeal in the Democratic stronghold of California, helping Schiff become a favorite of the party’s establishment and lifting him to become a fundraising powerhouse in a massively expensive primary campaign.Schiff’s victory speech was interrupted by a fiery crowd of protestors chanting, “Ceasefire now!” and “Free Palestine!”“We want to make sure we keep this kind of democracy,” Schiff said, trying to appeal to the crowd.Meanwhile, Garvey, a former Major League Baseball star player, has voted for Trump twice and has not been open about whether he still supports him to this day. Garvey’s candidacy, buoyed by name recognition among older voters in particular, threw an unexpected twist into the race. The dynamic between Schiff and U.S. Rep. Katie Porter grew increasingly tense in the campaign’s closing weeks as both vied for a general election spot.The first-time candidate Garvey notched his spot on the fall ballot by positioning himself as an outsider running against entrenched Washington insiders who he blamed for rising grocery and gas prices, out-of-reach housing costs and an unchecked homeless crisis in cities.“Let’s celebrate,” Garvey said when he walked out on stage in his victory speech. “Welcome to the California comeback.”In a speech laden with baseball terminology, Garvey highlighted concerns with the border, inflation, homeless crisis, crime and foreign policy. He also appealed to voters tired of career politicians.Ahead of polls closing, candidate Barbara Lee stopped at her campaign headquarters in Oakland and spoke with reporters before she left for Washington D.C.“People understand that I hear them, I see them, that I want to make their lives better,” Lee said. “I’m experienced and have a deep and broad background in foreign policy and international relations. Right now, we need people in the United States Senate who can hit the ground running.”Both she and Katie Porter will not be advancing to November.Track national live updates here.Track statewide live updates here.Find all Californa election results here.-KCRA 3’s Jonathan Ayestas and Lindsay Weber contributed to this reporting.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. —
One of two U.S. senators representing California could be either a Democrat or Republican as the two frontrunners who emerged are Adam Schiff and Steve Garvey.
With the top-two system, the two top vote-getters regardless of political affiliation advance to the November general election.
Democrats are expected to easily hold the Senate seat in November, a relief for the party as it seeks to defend a narrow majority. But the campaign still represents a new era in California politics, which was long dominated by Feinstein and a handful of other veteran politicians.
Schiff gained national attention as a leading antagonist to former President Donald Trump during his years in the White House. He was a leading voice during Trump’s two impeachments, prompting House Republicans to take the extraordinary step of censuring him after they gained control of the chamber.
That only deepened his appeal in the Democratic stronghold of California, helping Schiff become a favorite of the party’s establishment and lifting him to become a fundraising powerhouse in a massively expensive primary campaign.
Schiff’s victory speech was interrupted by a fiery crowd of protestors chanting, “Ceasefire now!” and “Free Palestine!”
“We want to make sure we keep this kind of democracy,” Schiff said, trying to appeal to the crowd.
Meanwhile, Garvey, a former Major League Baseball star player, has voted for Trump twice and has not been open about whether he still supports him to this day.
Garvey’s candidacy, buoyed by name recognition among older voters in particular, threw an unexpected twist into the race. The dynamic between Schiff and U.S. Rep. Katie Porter grew increasingly tense in the campaign’s closing weeks as both vied for a general election spot.
The first-time candidate Garvey notched his spot on the fall ballot by positioning himself as an outsider running against entrenched Washington insiders who he blamed for rising grocery and gas prices, out-of-reach housing costs and an unchecked homeless crisis in cities.
“Let’s celebrate,” Garvey said when he walked out on stage in his victory speech. “Welcome to the California comeback.”
In a speech laden with baseball terminology, Garvey highlighted concerns with the border, inflation, homeless crisis, crime and foreign policy. He also appealed to voters tired of career politicians.
Ahead of polls closing, candidate Barbara Lee stopped at her campaign headquarters in Oakland and spoke with reporters before she left for Washington D.C.
“People understand that I hear them, I see them, that I want to make their lives better,” Lee said. “I’m experienced and have a deep and broad background in foreign policy and international relations. Right now, we need people in the United States Senate who can hit the ground running.”
Both she and Katie Porter will not be advancing to November.
(Updated with more results & Super Tuesday details) The Congressman from Hollywood is one big step closer to becoming the Golden State’s junior Senator, but saw up-close this Super Tuesday some of the visceral challenges Democrats face from their own base.
In the double header that is California’s primary this Super Tuesday, Adam Schiff secured the top spot with just under 40% of the vote in. NBC News and the Associated Press called it for Schiff just over 30 minutes after the polls closed in the nation’s most populous state.
Not that night was all balloon drops and victory dances for the veteran Congressman.
Dozens of protesters chanting “ceasefire now” over the worsening situation in Gaza made it near impossible for Schiff to get though his speech to supporters at Avalon on LA’s Vine Street.
As security attempted to remove the protesters, Schiff at first tried to make their presence a sign of democracy’s strength, but their sheer numbers overwhelmed the Congressman and his Hollywood victory party. Likely forcing a shorter speech than the gregarious politician intended, the incursion by the protesters exemplifies the backlash that Democrats — from President Joe Biden to down ticket races — face as an end to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza remains elusive.
Protesters disrupt Democratic Senate candidate U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) as he speaks during his primary election night partty at The Avalon in LA // Credit: Getty
Representing Burbank for over 20 years, Schiff is running for the seat that the late Dianne Feinstein held since 1992 until her death last September. With his district encompassing Disney, Warner Bros. and more, cable news regular Schiff has garnered support in the race from high profile fans such as Nancy Pelosi, Jon Hamm, ex-Senator Barbara Boxer and Billy Crystal.
For a while it looked like the battle zone would shift to second place race. Would Schiff face fellow Democrat Kate Porter or Republican Steve Garvey in November? That dust up didn’t last very long if the eventual results bear out the trajectory we’re seeing so far.
“Welcome to the California comeback,” Garvey told his supporters as his lead over Porter proved insurmountable. “We haven’t come this far to only go this far,” he added in a speech that sounded very Ronald Reagan. Hell, Garvey even mentioned a 1984 Dodgers game in his remarks.
In a low turn-out day, Schiff snagged 37% of the vote, while political novice Garvey took 29% to three-term Orange County Congresswoman Porter’s 15%. Beloved Oakland Congresswoman Barbara Lee, who many thought Gov. Gavin Newsom would appoint to serve out the remainder of Feinstein’s term, is in a far fourth with 7% of the votes tallied.
Under the jungle primary rules in California, where all candidates for elected office run in the same primary no matter their political party and the top two vote-winners move forward, Schiff has strategically worked almost harder for Garvey than the ex-Dodger player did for himself.
On a not-so Super Tuesday that saw Joe Biden and Donald Trump hoover up delegates in their respective long marches towards the GOP and Democrats conventions this summer, Garvey coming in second place allows Schiff to sidestep the bloody Blue State civil war that would surely emerge if Porter was his November rival.
In a state that hasn’t elected a Republican to state office in decades, another benefit for longtime Congressman Schiff in a race against Garvey is the cost savings.
A big fundraiser, the former lead House Manager in the first Senate impeachment trial of the ex-Celebrity Apprentice host will save millions not just from his own coffers but from the accounts of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee. With California as close to a sure thing as you can get in American politics, the DSCC can allocate funds to closer races like Montana incumbent Jon Tester.
Aside from the Senate race, the bid for the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office and Gov. Newsom’s mental heath and homelessness-focused Proposition 1 are also possible game changers in the Golden State.
Having beaten back two recall efforts since his 2020 victory, current L.A. DA George Gascón is up against 11 challengers this election, five of whom are from his own office. The most recent results have Gascón with 23% to 18% for Nathan Hoffman. The largest fundraiser in the DA race, former federal prosecutor Hoffman was unsuccessful in his 2022 bid to be the Republican nominee for California Attorney General. With two very different views of reform, the role of the DA, plus an inability to even agree on whether crime is rising or declining in the nation’s largest county, Gascón and Hoffman will go at it again in November.
There is a bit of déjà vu to their race.
Funded by big donations from Netflix founder Reed Hastings and other Hollywood luminaries, former San Francisco DA and ex-LAPD officer Gascón took down incumbent Jackie Lacey in a bitter and close 2020 face off.
Backed by a bipartisan support in Sacramento and with a big push from Gov. Newsom, Proposition 1 is the only statewide measure on the ballot this year. A mix of two bills passed by the legislature, the Behavioral Health Services Program and Bond Measure, as it is formally known, would authorize the state to raise over $6 billion in bonds for housing for those living on the streets. Currently holding a slight lead in the incoming results, Prop 1 also aims to create facilities for those with mental health and substance use issues.
Moving into the closing years of his tenure as Governor and facing another recall, Newsom put a lot of his political capitol on the line for Prop 1.
California, we have a chance to reimagine our mental healthcare system TODAY.
We can help those living in tents and on our streets to get into the care and housing they need.
Not that the Biden surrogate and potential one day White House candidate could resist putting at least one foot on the national stage tonight
While the run-off races look set earlier than usual, remember that California votes often to take weeks to be finalized.
Every resident of the state was sent a mail-in ballot. For those who choose to make their voice known that way, the mail-in ballot had to be postmarked by today to be valid. With that, and as long as the ballot is in by March 12, it will be counted.
California joined Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont Arkansas, Virginia, Massachusetts and Texas voting in the Republican presidential primary today. Alaska and American Samoa joined those 15 states in holding their Democratic primary races this Super Tuesday.
In addition to the 15 states holding presidential contests on Super Tuesday, there are also a handful of down-ballot primaries on March 5. The contest that’s drawn the most national interest is the U.S. Senate primary in California, a complex and expensive battle to identify general-election candidates for the seat previously held by the late Dianne Feinstein.
California utilizes a so-called top-two primary system in which candidates (below the presidential level) compete for spots on the November ballot without regard to party affiliation. So there could be two Democrats, two Republicans, or one of each in the general election. This system has frequently led to candidates trying to “box out” their most dangerous opponents by keeping them from making the top two in the primary vote.
This sort of gamesmanship has been pivotal in the 2024 Senate race. Given the Democratic Party’s dominant position in California (no Republican has won a statewide race since 2006), the general election will almost certainly be won by a Democrat. But it makes all the difference in the world whether there are one or two Democrats competing in November.
The longtime front-runner in the race, Los Angeles–area Democratic congressman Adam Schiff, very much wants his November opponent to be Republican Steve Garvey, a baseball star in Los Angeles and San Diego, whom he would trounce without much question. So he has been devoting a sizable portion of his massive campaign treasury (he’s raised about $50 million so far) to attacks on Garvey designed to consolidate GOP voters behind the former ballplayer, as opposed to either of the other two significant Republicans in the contest. Schiff is hoping that Garvey can box out his Democratic colleague Katie Porter, the Elizabeth Warren protégé from Orange County who has stronger progressive credentials and is herself a prodigious fundraiser (pulling in an estimated $24 million for the Senate race). An X factor in the race is Schiff and Porter’s distinguished Bay Area colleague Barbara Lee, whose age (she will turn 78 in July) and poor fundraising have offset her sterling progressive reputation.
In addition to Schiff’s promotion of Garvey, Porter has also had to contend with $10 million in attack ads from a group backed by cryptocurrency executives angry at her criticisms of the industry. A wrinkle in the campaign has been an upsurge of progressive fury at Schiff for his staunch backing of Israel in its war against Hamas; Lee was an early supporter of a permanent cease-fire and Porter has supported a more conditional cease-fire effort.
The polls show that Schiff’s strategic effort to boost Garvey at Porter’s expense is working. In the RealClearPolitics polling averages for this race, Schiff is at 26.5 percent, Garvey is at 20.5 percent, Porter is at 18.3 percent, and Lee is at 9 percent. Garvey has been steadily trending upwards in the polls as Schiff’s campaign love-bombed him; in the latest UC Berkeley–Los Angeles Times survey, the Republican actually led the field with 27 percent, two points ahead of his frenemy Schiff and eight points ahead of Porter.
A big imponderable about this primary is turnout. Whatever its merits, the top-two system has done nothing to improve the Golden State’s reputation for poor turnout in primaries, nor have such voter-friendly enhancements as automatic voter registration (in most counties, at least) and the dispatch of mail ballots to all registered voters without the need for an excuse or an application (voters also have in-person options if they don’t want to vote by mail). This year’s turnout may also be depressed by two totally uncompetitive presidential contests and an unusually early date (California primaries are usually held in June but were moved up to coincide with the presidential primaries). Politico looked at the pace of ballots returned early and predicted very low turnout:
California is lagging behind the 2022 midterm return rate, when the state had more ballots returned by this point in the race. Ultimately, 2022 saw a 33 percent turnout.
There’s dozens of factors that could affect the state’s final turnout number, but [turnout monitor Paul] Mitchell is cautiously speculating that only 29 percent of California’s registered voters will turn in their ballots, falling below the current record low of 31 percent in 2012.
Low turnouts in California have traditionally been good for Republicans, which is another factor that might help Garvey, whose own campaign and debate appearances have been decidedly unimpressive. Many Democrats have mixed feelings about the contest. On the one hand, a Schiff-Garvey general election might free up many millions of dollars that would otherwise go to a Senate race between two Democrats. More available donor money would benefit candidates in races more critical to the Democratic Party’s power (notably six competitive U.S. House races, five of them for seats now controlled by Republicans). On the other hand, strategic issues aside, Schiff is not an inspiring choice for many California progressives, as my colleague Rebecca Traister explained in her recent overview of the race:
Porter does not always play well with others in her own party — including Nancy Pelosi, the fearsome éminence grise of both California politics and the U.S. House — and has been accused by multiple former employees of being a tough, perhaps even abusive, boss. Lee is a beloved hero of the left who has not participated in a competitive election in years and at 77 is a dicey choice to fill a seat recently vacated by a woman in possession of the philosopher’s stone. And Schiff? Schiff is fine if you want a warrior on behalf of the meager gruel of status quo politics, a candidate handpicked by the previous generation of Democratic leadership to further its dubious legacy.
If the race for the two spots in the general election is very close, it could be a while before we know the outcome: California is a state that counts mail ballots postmarked by Election Day so long as they are received at local election offices within seven days. Another strange wrinkle is that voters will be selecting a top two not just for the full Senate term that begins in 2025, but — separately — for the last two months of Feinstein’s term (being filled until November by appointed place-holder Laphonza Butler, who chose not to pursue an elected term). It’s possible that confused voters will produce different top twos for the full and truncated terms. That would be an unlikely but fitting end to this odd Senate race full of misdirection and borderline deceit.
The four leading candidates for California‘s open U.S. Senate seat met again this evening, this time in a one-hour San Francisco debate that produced fewer clashes than their first gathering in January.
Still, with less than a month before the state’s open primary, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) focused a number of his attacks on Steve Garvey, the sole Republican on the stage, particularly over the “issue” of Donald Trump.
“Let me just say this also to Mr. Garvey: The greatest threat that we have to our democracy is Donald Trump,” Schiff said.
Garvey voted for Trump in the last two presidential elections but said that, when it comes to supporting him this year, he “will make that decision when the time comes.” In response to Schiff, Garvey said that the “gravest threat to democracy is deconstruction of the Constitution. Packing the court. Doing away with the filibuster. These are things that deconstruct democracy.”
Their exchange continued. Schiff replied, “Then Donald Trump packed the Supreme Court, which is why millions of Americans lost their right of reproductive freedom, why the Supreme Court is striking down air quality and water quality regulations.” As he started to talk about striking down voting rights, Garvey interjected.
“You are fixated on one person and one person only,” Garvey said.
Schiff, who has long been one of Trump’s leading foes, has been atop the polls in the race, leaving it to Garvey and Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA) to secure the other spot on the ballot in the general election. Further behind is Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA).
Porter has called Schiff “cynical” for spotlighting Garvey in his ads, on the premise that the former Dodger star would, as a Republican, be much easier to beat than she would be. In other words, by highlighting Garvey’s past backing of Trump, Schiff is also giving the Republican candidate the attention he needs to consolidate support among the state’s rightward voters.
During the debate, Porter took another swipe at Schiff’s ads. In response to a question of upper age limits for elected officials, Porter said, “As Mr. Schiff well knows, it is true that we have gerrymandering and elections that are deeply blue districts in which there really aren’t competitive elections. In fact, he’s hoping that the Senate race turns into one with the ads that he is running right now,” she said.
Assisted by a loud bell ring, moderators Frank Buckley of KTLA and Nikki Laurenzo of Inside California Politics kept candidates to their time limits and tried to pin them down on specific questions. When the candidates tried to answer in their talking points, they followed up with questions again.
Sometimes it worked, sometimes it did not.
Schiff was asked whether President Joe Biden was “wrong” to say last week that Israel’s retaliatory actions had been “over the top” in its response to the Hamas terrorist attack. After initially answering by expressing support for Israel’s right to defend itself and for the way that the president has handled the Israel-Hamas war, Schiff was asked again about Biden’s comment. He said, “I don’t know that I express it the way the president has. But I think he is right to try to bring about this negotiated deal, where we’ll have an extended pause, so we can get the hostages out and more aid in.”
Meanwhile, Garvey spoke in generalities when pressed on what specific regulations he would eliminate as a way to try to solve the state’s housing crisis. Asked again, he said, “We see the cost of housing continue to rise for one simple reason. Let’s take young adults. Young adults cannot afford to have the single most important equity in their lives … So I go back constantly to the idea of opening the gates, cutting down inflation.”
Other moments:
At the last debate, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) clashed with Garvey and she called him out for chiding his Democratic rivals as out of touch on the issue of homelessness, when she herself had once been unsheltered. At tonight’s debate, Garvey told her, “I’m so sorry that you went through that.”
For her part, Lee was asked what legislation she has seen into law that specifically addressed the homelessness crisis. She cited the expansion of a homelessness agency task force and other proposed legislation, including proposals to address the difficulty in obtaining renter security deposits.
Lee also was asked about her call for a $50 per hour minimum wage and how it would impact small businesses. Noting that she owned and ran a business, she said, “I know what worker productivity means — that means that you have to make sure your employees are taken care of and have a living wage.”
Garvey, who has called for an audit of money being spent to solve the homelessness crisis, was asked whether those who are unhoused should be allowed to live in RVs and tents while they wait for a permanent solution. “I don’t think so. I think it’s inhumane. There are two or three fires a week in downtown Los Angeles,” he said. “There are two or three deaths each week. Let’s get back to humanity. They need to be taken off the streets. They need to be cared for.”
On the border, Garvey was the most critical of Biden, saying that he “opened the floodgates and created a crisis in the United States. He should be the one to step up and close the border.”
Even though he has taken a hard line on the border issue, Garvey was non-committal when asked whether he would accept Trump’s endorsement, albeit he didn’t criticize the former president. “These are personal choices. I answer to God, my wife, family and to the people of California. And I hope you would respect that I have personal choices,” he said.
Schiff said that “there’s no question that we have a crime problem in California, particularly with these smash and grab robberies,” while pointing out that when Garvey “was playing baseball,” he was working as a prosecutor in the U.S. attorneys office.
Porter was asked about why, after five years in Congress, she waiting until last week to introduce a 10-point plan to solve the crisis. She noted her work as a consumer advocate, but was then pressed again for an answer. “I have worked on housing issues since the day I was elected and have talked a lot about this, about the challenges that my own family faces,” she said.
At a number of points, Porter attacked “Washington insiders” who ensured that billionaires got tax breaks. “The problem is that the workers who are creating the value who are hard at work are not receiving enough to live on while Washington insiders continue to give huge tax breaks to the wealthy.”
Schiff took a few swipes at Porter’s attacks on career politicians. He said, “You can’t walk down the halls of Congress without tripping over five people that are going to say they are going to shake up Washington. They don’t end up getting anything actually accomplished.”
Representative Adam Schiff was mingling his way through a friendly crowd at a Democratic barbecue when the hecklers arrived—by boat. Schiff and two other Senate candidates, Representatives Katie Porter and Barbara Lee, convened on the back patio of a country club overlooking the port of Stockton, California. Schiff spoke first. “It’s such a beautiful evening,” he said, thanking the host, local Democratic Representative Josh Harder.
It was hard to know what to make of the protest vessel, except that its seven passengers were yelling things as Schiff began his remarks. And not nice things. Although their words were tough to decipher, the flag flying over the craft made clear where they were coming from: FUCK BIDEN. Notably, of the three candidates, Schiff was the only one I heard singled out by name—or, in one case, by a Donald Trump–inspired epithet (“Shifty”) and, in another, a four-letter profanity similar to the congressman’s surname (clever!).
Schiff is used to such derision and says it proves his bona fides as a worthy Trump adversary. Given the laws of political physics today, it also bodes well for his Senate campaign. The principle is simple: to be despised by the opposition can yield explicit benefits. This is especially true when you belong to the dominant party, as Schiff does in heavily Democratic California. One side’s villain is the other side’s champion. Adam Schiff embodies this rule as well as any politician in the country.
In recent years, Schiff has had a knack for eliciting loud and at times unhinged reactions from opponents, even though he himself tends to be quite hinged. The 45th president tweeted about Schiff 328 times, as tallied by Schiff’s office. Tucker Carlson called the congressman “a wild-eyed conspiracy nut.” A group of QAnon followers circulated a report in 2021 that U.S. Special Forces had arrested Schiff and that he was in a holding facility awaiting transfer to Guantánamo Bay for trial (the report proved erroneous). Before Schiff had a chance to meet his new Republican colleague Anna Paulina Luna, of Florida, she filed a resolution condemning his “Russia hoax investigation” and calling for him to potentially be fined $16 million (the resolution failed).
This onslaught has also been good for business, inspiring equal passion in Schiff’s favor. A former prosecutor, he became an icon of the left for his emphatic critiques of Trump’s behavior in office, including as the lead House manager in Trump’s first impeachment trial. “You know you can’t trust this president to do what’s right for this country,” Schiff said as part of his closing argument, a speech that became a rallying cry of the anti-Trump resistance. (“I am in tears,” the actor Debra Messing wrote on Twitter.) Opponents gave grudging respect. “They nailed him,” Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell told Mitt Romney, according to an account in a new Romney biography by my colleague McKay Coppins. Schiff’s own Trump-era memoir, Midnight in Washington, became a No. 1 New York Times best seller.
Representative Adam Schiff speaks to supporters at a barbecue hosted by fellow Democratic House member Josh Harder in Stockton, California. (Photographs by Austin Leong for The Atlantic)
You could draw parallel lines charting the levels of vilification that Schiff has encountered and his name recognition and fundraising numbers. Both the good and the grisly have boosted Schiff’s media profile, which he has adeptly cultivated. Schiff has come in at or near the top of the polls in the Senate race so far, along with Porter. A Berkeley IGS survey released last week revealed him as the best-known of the candidates vying for the late Dianne Feinstein’s job; 69 percent of likely voters said they could render an opinion of him (40 percent favorable, 29 percent unfavorable). He raised $6.4 million in the most recent reporting period, ending the quarter with $32 million cash on hand, or $20 million more than the runner-up, Porter. That’s more than any Senate candidate in the country this election cycle, and a massive advantage in a state populated by about 22 million registered voters covering some of the nation’s most expensive media markets.
“He’s become an inspiration and a voice of reason for many of us,” Becky Espinoza, of Stockton, told me at the Democratic barbecue.
Or at least the sector of “many of us” who don’t want him dead.
Schiff started getting threats a few months into Trump’s presidency. “Welcome to the club,” Nancy Pelosi, his longtime mentor, told him. He endured anti-Semitic screeds online and actual bullets sent to his office bearing the names of Schiff’s two kids. “I can’t stand the fact that millions of people hate you; they just hate you,” Schiff’s wife, Eve—yes, Adam and Eve—told her husband after the abuse started. “They just hate you.”
No one deserves to be subjected to such menace, and the threats can be particularly chilling for a member of Congress who would not normally have a protective detail. (Schiff’s office declined to discuss its security staffing and protocols.) Schiff is not shy about repeating these ugly stories, however. There’s an element of strategic humblebragging to this, as he is plainly aware that being a target of the MAGA minions can be extremely attractive to the Democratic voters he needs.
In June, congressional Republicans led a party-line vote to censure Schiff for his role in investigating Trump. As then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy attempted to preside, Democrats physically rallied around Schiff on the House floor chanting “shame” at McCarthy. On the day of his censure, Schiff was interviewed on CNN and twice on MSNBC; the next morning he appeared on ABC’s The View. “Whoever it was that introduced that censure resolution against him probably ensured Adam’s victory,” Representative Mike Thompson, another California Democrat, told me. A few colleagues addressed him that day as “Senator Schiff.”
I dropped in on Schiff periodically over the past few months as he traversed the chaos of the Capitol, weighed in on Trump’s legal travails, and campaigned across California. What did a Senate candidacy look like for a Trump-era cause célèbre who is revered and reviled with such vigor? I found it a bit odd to see Schiff out in the political wild—glad-handing, granny-hugging, and, at the barbecue in late August, nearly knocking a plate of brisket from the grip of an eager selfie-seeker. He has graduated to a full-on news-fixture status, someone perpetually framed by a screen or viewed behind a podium, as if he emerged from his mother’s womb and was dropped straight into a formal courtroom, hearing room, or greenroom setting.
I watched a number of guests in Stockton clutch Schiff’s hand and address him in plaintive tones. “After I stopped crying a little bit, I just wanted to thank him for all he did during impeachment and to just save our democracy,” said Espinoza, following her brief meeting with the candidate.
Nearby, David Hartman, of Tracy, California, put down a paper plate of chicken, pickles, and corn salad and made his way to Schiff. “I just want to shake the man’s hand and thank him,” Hartman told me, which is what he did. So did his wife, Tracy (of Tracy!), who was likewise surprised to find herself in tears.
“I’m like a human focus group,” Schiff told me, describing how strangers approach him at airports. “Sometimes I will have two people come up to me simultaneously. One will say, ‘You are Adam Schiff. I just want to shake your hand. You’re a hero.’ And the other will say, ‘You’re not my hero. Why do you lie all the time?’”
For his first eight terms in Congress, Schiff, 63, was not much recognized beyond the confines of the U.S. Capitol or the cluster of affluent Los Angeles–area neighborhoods he has represented in the House since 2001. “I think, before Trump, if you had to pick one of these big lightning rods or partisan bomb-throwers, you would not pick me,” Schiff told me.
Largely true. Schiff speaks in careful, somewhat clipped tones, with a slight remnant of a Boston accent from his childhood in suburban Framingham, Massachusetts. (His father was in the clothing business and moved the family to Arizona and eventually California.) A Stanford- and Harvard-trained attorney, Schiff gained a reputation as an ambitious but low-key legislator in the House, and a deft communicator in service of his generally liberal positions.
A Fox News reporter and other guests at the barbecue in Stockton.(Photographs by Austin Leong for The Atlantic)
After Trump’s election, however, Schiff’s district effectively became CNN, MSNBC, and the network Sunday shows, along with the scoundrel’s gallery of right-wing media that pulverized him hourly. This included a certain Twitter feed. The worst abuse Schiff received started after Trump’s maiden tweet about him dropped on July 24, 2017. This was back in an era of relative innocence, when it was still something of a novelty for a sitting president to attack a member of Congress by name—“Sleazy Adam Schiff,” in this case.
Schiff tweeted back that Trump’s “comments and actions are beneath the dignity of the office.” Schiff would later reveal that he rejected a less restrained rejoinder suggested by Mike Thompson, his California colleague: “Mr. President, when they go low, we go high. Now go fuck yourself.” Anyway, that was six years, two impeachments, four indictments, 91 felony counts, and 327 tweets by Donald Trump about Adam Schiff ago.
“Adam is one of the least polarizing personalities you will ever find,” said another Democratic House colleague, Dan Goldman, of New York. “The reason he’s become such a bogeyman for the Republican Party is simply that he’s so effective.” Goldman served as the lead majority counsel during Trump’s first impeachment, working closely with Schiff. “We originally met in the greenroom of MSNBC in June of 2018,” Goldman told me. (Of course they did.)
Schiff understands that some of the rancor directed at him is performative, and likes to point out the quiet compliments he receives from political foes. Trump used to complain on Twitter that Schiff spent too much time on television—in reality, a source of extreme envy for the then-president. Schiff tells a story about how Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, came to Capitol Hill for a deposition from members of Schiff’s Intelligence committee in 2017. “Kushner comes up to me to make conversation, and to ingratiate himself,” Schiff told me. “And he said, ‘You know, you do a great job on television.’ And I said, ‘Well, apparently your father-in-law doesn’t think so,’ and [Kushner] said, ‘Oh, yes, he does.’” (Kushner didn’t respond to a request for comment.)
One of Trump’s most fervent bootlickers, Senator Lindsey Graham, walked up to Schiff in a Capitol hallway during the first impeachment trial and told him how good of a job he was doing. Schiff, who relayed both this and the Kushner stories in his memoir, says he gets that from other Republicans, too, usually House members he’s worked with—including some who lampoon him in front of microphones. A few House Republicans apologized privately to Schiff, he told me, right after they voted to censure him.
“The apologies are always accompanied by ‘You’re not going to say anything about this, are you?’” Schiff said. When I urged Schiff to name names, to call out the hypocrites, he declined.
I asked Schiff if he would prefer the more anonymous, pre-2017 version of himself running in this Senate campaign, as opposed to the more embattled, death-threat-getting version, who nonetheless enjoys so many advantages because of all the attention. He paused. “I’d rather the country didn’t have to go through all this with Donald Trump,” he said, skirting a direct answer.
As with many members of Congress seeking a promotion or an exit, Schiff gives off a strong whiff of being done with the place. “The House has become kind of a basket case,” he told me, citing one historic grandiloquence that he was recently privy to—the episode in which Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene called her colleague Lauren Boebert a “little bitch” on the House floor.
“And I remember thinking to myself, There used to be giants who served in this body,” Schiff said. He sighed, as he does.
I met with Schiff at the Capitol in early October, amid the usual swirl of weighty events: Feinstein had died three days earlier; news that Governor Gavin Newsom would appoint the Democratic activist Laphonza Butler as her replacement came the night before. That afternoon, Republican Representative Matt Gaetz had filed his fateful “motion to vacate” that would result in the demise of McCarthy’s speakership the next day. Schiff stood just off the House floor, colleagues passing in both directions, Republicans looking especially angry, and reporters gathering around Schiff in a small scrum.
No matter what happens next November, Schiff is not running for reelection in the House. He told me he has long believed that he’d be a better fit for the Senate anyway, where he has been coveting a seat for years. Schiff said he considered running in 2016, after the retirement of the incumbent Barbara Boxer (who was eventually succeeded by Kamala Harris).
A Democrat will almost certainly win the 2024 California race. Senate contests in the state follow a two-tiered system in which candidates from both parties compete in a March primary, and then the two top finishers face off in November, regardless of their affiliation. In addition to Schiff, Porter, and Lee, the former baseball star Steve Garvey, known also for his various divorce and paternity scandals, recently entered the race as a Republican. A smattering of long shots are also running, including the requisite former L.A. news anchor and requisite former Silicon Valley executive. Butler announced on October 19 that she would not seek the permanent job.
To varying degrees, all of the three leading Democratic candidates have national profiles. Lee, who has represented her Oakland-area district for nearly 25 years, previously chaired both the Congressional Progressive and Black Caucuses. Porter was elected to Congress in 2018 and has gained a quasi-cult following as a progressive gadfly who has a knack for conducting pointed interrogations of executives and public officials that go rapidly viral. A few of her fans were so excited to meet Porter at the Stockton barbecue that three actually spilled drinks on her—this according to the congresswoman, speaking at an event a few days later.
Schiff, Porter, and Lee all identify as progressive Democrats on most issues, though Schiff tends to be more hawkish on national security. He voted to authorize the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and supported the 2011 U.S. missile strikes against Libya. Lee, who opposed all three, recently criticized Schiff’s foreign-policy views as “part of the status quo thinking” in Washington. (Porter was not in office then.) Schiff expressed “unequivocal support for the security and the right of Israel to defend itself” after last month’s attacks by Hamas. Lee has been more critical of the Israeli government, and called for a cease-fire immediately after the Hamas attacks. As for Porter, she has been a rare progressive to focus her response on America’s Iran policy, which she called lacking and partly to blame for the attacks.
Although Schiff is best known for his work as a Trump antagonist—and happily dines out on that—he is also wary of letting the former president define him entirely. “This is bigger than Trump,” he reminds people whenever the conversation veers too far in Trump’s inevitable direction. Schiff dutifully pivots to more standard campaign themes, namely the “two hugely disruptive forces” he says have shaped American life: “the changes in our economy” and “the changes in how we get our information.” He reels off the number of cities in California that he’s visited, events he’s done, and endorsements he’s received as proof that he is a workmanlike candidate, not just a citizen of the greenroom.
A group of hecklers in a boat floats by near the barbecue. (Photographs by Austin Leong for The Atlantic)
Recently, he lamented that many of his Republican colleagues are now driven by a “perverse celebrity” that he believes the likes of Greene and Boebert have acquired through their Trump-style antics and ties to the former president. I pointed out to Schiff that he, too, has received a lot of Trump-driven recognition. Doesn’t being affiliated with Trump, whether as an ally or an adversary, have benefits for both sides?
“Well, I don’t view it that way at all,” Schiff said. “I don’t view it as having any kind of equivalence. On one hand, we’re trying to defend our democracy. And on the other hand, we have these aiders and abettors of Trump by these vile performance artists. It’s quite different.”
Schiff’s biggest supporter has been Pelosi, who endorsed him over two other members of her own caucus and delegation. This included Lee, whom Pelosi described to me as “like a political sister.” I spoke by phone recently with the former speaker, who was effusive about Schiff and scoffed at any suggestion that he benefited from his resistance to Trump and the counter-backlash that ensued. “If what’s-his-name never existed, Adam Schiff would still be the right person for California,” Pelosi said. It was one of two occasions in our interview in which she refused to utter the word “Trump.”
“I just don’t want to say his name,” she explained. “Because I worry that he’s going to corrode my phone or something.”
In one of my conversations with Schiff, I asked him this multiple-choice question: Who had raised the most money for him—Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, or Donald Trump? My goal was to get Schiff to acknowledge that, without Trump, he would be nowhere near as well known, well financed, or well positioned to potentially represent the country’s most populous state in the Senate.
“I’m not sure how to answer that,” he said. After a pause, he picked himself. “I am my own biggest fundraiser,” he declared. Okay, I said, but wasn’t Trump the single biggest motivator for anyone to donate?
“It’s the whole package,” Schiff maintained, ceding nothing. He then made sure to mention the person who’s been “most formative in helping shape my career and phenomenally helpful in my campaign—Nancy Pelosi.” He was in no rush to give what’s-his-name any credit.
Senator Dianne Feinstein, who died last night at 90, braved one of the most remarkable political expeditions in American history—and also one of the grimmer spectacles at the end of her life and career.
Is it too soon to point this out? Yes, perhaps. With the official notice of her death today, Feinstein received her just and proper tributes, hitting all the key markers: How Di-Fi, as she is known in Washington shorthand, had stepped in as mayor of San Francisco after her predecessor was assassinated in 1978. How she was a fervent proponent of gun safety, the longest-serving woman in the Senate, and the chamber’s oldest member. How, as chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, she presided over the preparation of an incriminating report describing the CIA’s torture of suspected terrorists in secret prisons around the world. How she was a trailblazer, stateswoman, powerhouse, force, grande dame, etc. Give her her due. She deserves it.
But Congress can be a tough and ghoulish place, with its zero-sum math and unforgiving partisanship. Over her last year, Feinstein’s declining health became a bleak sideshow—her absences and hospitalizations, shingles, encephalitis, and bad falls; the lawsuits over her late husband’s estate and the cost of her medical bills and long-term care.
Feinstein’s insistence on remaining in the Senate—and the uncertainty of her schedule—complicated life for Democrats, making it harder for them to hold votes, set strategy, and confirm judges. Her colleagues and White House officials whispered their frustration. And she became the latest exemplar of a basic, egalitarian principle in lawmaking: Even the most legendary figures ultimately amount to a vote. Often your most important job is simply to be available, show up, be counted.
When that is in doubt, patience can wear fast. Questions about “fitness” arise. Such is the price of continued residency in the senior center of the Capitol. Feinstein resisted quitting for years, and only grudgingly said she wouldn’t seek reelection in 2024, leaving the race to succeed her in a kind of morbid suspension.
Politics, of course, runs on its own schedules and follows its own rules. A few weeks ago, I asked Adam Schiff, one of the California House Democrats running to succeed Feinstein in the Senate, whether she should step down. In other words, was she fit to serve? Again, maybe this was harsh, but it had become a standard question around Washington and California, and perfectly germane, given the tight split in the Senate. “It’s her decision to make,” Schiff said, a classic duck, but also practical. “I would be very concerned,” he continued, “that the Republicans would not fill her seat on the Judiciary Committee, and that would be the end of Joe Biden’s judicial appointments.” (Politico reported today that Republican Whip John Thune, of South Dakota, said he expects that his party will not resist efforts to fill committee seats left vacant by Feinstein’s death.)
Schiff added that he had continued to have a productive working relationship with Feinstein’s office, despite her health struggles. He was a proponent of business as usual, for as long it lasted, and Feinstein was still there. The pageant continued, the government heading for another shutdown, House Republicans tripping toward an impeachment and over themselves.
In the hours after Feinstein’s death was announced, Washington took a brief and deferential pause. Statements and obituaries were dispatched, most prepared in advance. Then it was on to the next. Who would California Governor Gavin Newsom pick to serve out Feinstein’s term? How would that affect the race to succeed her next year? Who would replace Feinstein on the Judiciary Committee, and when would they be seated?
The hushed questions about how long the nonagenarian senator could hang on finally had their resolution. Far too many people in power resist the option of a restful denouement. The stakes can be high, even harrowing, for the country. These sagas can be distressing to follow, but there’s no shortage of dark fascination. Stick around too long, and you risk losing control of the finale. It can happen to the best, and at the end of the most extraordinary careers.
Dozens of Democratic lawmakers have called on the Judicial Conference—the policy-setting body of the federal judiciary—to allow cameras into the courtroom for Donald Trump’s criminal trials. “Given the historic nature of the charges brought forth in these cases, it is hard to imagine a more powerful circumstance for televised proceedings,” the lawmakers, led by Rep. Adam Schiff, wrote in a letter to Judge Roslynn Mauskopf, who oversees the administration of federal courts. “If the public is to fully accept the outcome, it will be vitally important for it to witness, as directly as possible, how the trials are conducted, the strength of the evidence adduced and the credibility of witnesses.”
Twitter content
This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.
Cameras are currently banned in federal criminal trial courts, where Trump faces charges both for his alleged mishandling of classified documents and his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. As I reported Thursday, some legal experts—and Trump’s own lawyer—have called for a change to the camera policy, given the immense national interest in cases against the former president. Without cameras, some have noted, the public would also be at greater risk of consuming deceptive or misleading information about the proceedings. “The idea that there is no visual primary source available to the larger public is unjustifiable in general, but especially when you know there will be so many competing narratives and so much misinformation about what’s happening in the courtroom,” Gabe Roth, executive director of Fix the Court, a judicial reform advocacy group, told me.
The lawmakers’ letter—whose signers include members of the January 6 committee Reps. Bennie Thompson, Zoe Lofgren, and Jamie Raskin—similarly emphasized the need for transparency. They urged the Judicial Conference “to take additional steps, including live broadcasting, to ensure the facts of this case are brought forward, unfiltered, to the public.”
There are “at least two pathways” to changing the policy, former acting US solicitor general Neal Katyal told me: the Judicial Conference, which is chaired by Chief Justice John Roberts, could vote to amend the rules—something they’ve been reluctant to do so in the past—or Congress could pass a law.
Lawmakers have pushed for cameras in the courtrooms in the past, as a bipartisan group of senators did in a bill earlier this year that would give federal judges the ability to permit TV coverage of their trials. But Trump’s cases bring heightened urgency to the matter. “That legislation could be a model for a specific bill in the Trump case,” Katyal wrote in the Washington Post.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The House voted Wednesday to censure California Rep. Adam Schiff for comments he made several years ago about investigations into Donald Trump’s ties to Russia, rebuking the Democrat and frequent critic of the former president along party lines.
Schiff becomes the 25th House lawmaker to be censured. He was defiant ahead of the vote, saying he will wear the formal disapproval as a “badge of honor” and charging his GOP colleagues of doing the former president’s bidding.
“I will not yield,” Schiff, who is running for the Senate in his home state, said during debate over the measure. “Not one inch.”
When it was time for Schiff to come to the front of the chamber to be formally censured, immediately after the vote, the normally solemn ceremony turned into more of a celebratory atmosphere. Dozens of Democrats crowded to the front, clapping and cheering for Schiff and patting him on the back. They chanted “No!,” “Shame!” and “Adam! Adam!”
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., read the resolution out loud, as is tradition after a censure. But he only read part of the document before leaving the chamber as Democrats heckled and interrupted him.
“Censure all of us,” one Democrat yelled.
Schiff, the former Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and the lead prosecutor in Trump’s first impeachment trial, has long been a top Republican political target. Soon after taking back the majority this year, Republicans blocked him from sitting on the intelligence panel.
More than 20 Republicans voted with Democrats last week to block the censure resolution, but they changed their votes this week after the measure’s sponsor, Republican Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, removed a provision that could have fined Schiff $16 million if the House Ethics Committee determined he lied. Several of the Republicans who voted to block the resolution last week said they opposed fining a member of Congress in that manner.
The final vote on Wednesday was 213-209 along party lines, with a handful of members voting present.
The revised resolution says Schiff held positions of power during Trump’s presidency and “abused this trust by saying there was evidence of collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russia.” Schiff was one of the most outspoken critics of the former president as both the Justice Department and the Republican-led House launched investigations into Trump’s ties to Russia in 2017. Both investigations concluded that Russia intervened in the 2016 presidential election but neither found evidence of a criminal conspiracy.
“Representative Schiff purposely deceived his Committee, Congress, and the American people,” the resolution said.
The House has only censured two other lawmakers in the last 20 years. Republican Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona was censured in 2021 for tweeting an animated video that depicted him striking Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., with a sword. Former Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel of New York was censured in 2010 for serious financial and campaign misconduct.
The censure itself carries no practical effect, except to provide a historic footnote that marks a lawmaker’s career. But the GOP resolution would also launch an ethics investigation into Schiff’s conduct.
While Schiff did not initiate the 2017 congressional investigation into Trump’s Russia ties — then-House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, a Republican who later became one of Trump’s most ardent defenders, started it — Republicans arguing in favor of his censure Wednesday blamed him for what they said was the fallout of that probe, and of the separate investigation started that same year by Trump’s own Justice Department.
Luna said that Schiff’s comments that there was evidence against Trump “ripped apart American families across the country” and that he was “permanently destroying family relationships.” Several blamed him for the more than $30 million spent by then-special counsel Robert Mueller, who led the Justice Department probe.
Schiff said the censure resolution “would accuse me of omnipotence, the leader of some a vast Deep State conspiracy, and of course, it is nonsense.”
Democrats aggressively defended their colleague. Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin, who led Trump’s second impeachment, called the effort an “embarrassing revenge tour on behalf of Donald Trump.”
Mueller, who led the two-year Justice Department investigation, determined that Russia intervened on the campaign’s behalf and that Trump’s campaign welcomed the help. But Mueller’s team did not find that the campaign conspired to sway the election, and the Justice Department did not recommend any criminal charges.
The House intelligence committee probe launched by Nunes similarly found that Russia intervened in the election but that there was no evidence of a criminal conspiracy. Schiff was the top Democrat on the panel at the time.
Schiff said last week that the censure resolution was “red meat” that McCarthy was throwing to his conference amid squabbles over government spending. Republicans are trying to show their fealty to Trump, Schiff said.
He said he warned the country during impeachment proceedings three years ago that Trump “would go on to do worse. And of course he did worse in the form of a violent attack on the Capitol.”
After Democrats won the House majority in 2018, the House impeached Trump for abuse of power after he threatened to withhold military aid to Ukraine and urged the country’s president to investigate then-candidate Joe Biden. Schiff was the lead House prosecutor making the case for conviction to the Senate, arguing repeatedly that “right matters.” The Republican-led chamber ultimately acquitted him.
Trump was impeached a second time a year later, after he had left office, for his role in the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the Capitol. The Senate again acquitted Trump.
In the censure resolution against Schiff, Luna also cited a report released in May from special counsel John Durham that found that the FBI rushed into its investigation of Trump’s campaign and relied too much on raw and unconfirmed intelligence.
Durham — who testified before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday — said investigators repeatedly relied on “confirmation bias,” ignoring or rationalizing away evidence that undercut their premise of a Trump-Russia conspiracy as they pushed the probe forward. But he did not allege that political bias or partisanship were guiding factors for the FBI’s actions.
In the hours before the vote, Schiff’s campaign sent out a fundraising email that said Luna had introduced “yet ANOTHER resolution to censure me.”
“The vote and debate will happen imminently,” the email read, asking recipients to donate to help him fight back. “Once more, I have to be on the House floor to listen as MAGA Republicans push false and defamatory lies about me.”
Democrats argued that the House censure resolution is an effort to distract from Trump’s recent indictment on federal charges of hoarding classified documents — several of which dealt with sensitive national security matters — and attempting to conceal them. House Republicans, most of whom are loyal to Trump, say the indictment is more evidence that the government is conspiring against the former president.
“This is not a serious resolution,” said Rep. Madeleine Dean, D-Pa., but political theater to “distract from Donald Trump’s history of transgressions and now indictments.”
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a manager in Donald Trump’s first impeachment trial, was formally censured by the House on Wednesday on a party-line vote.
The vote Wednesday on the censure resolution was 213 to 209. All the votes in favor came from Republicans while Democrats provided all the “no” votes. Six Republicans voted “present.”
After the vote, a large group of House Democrats gathered near the Speaker’s dais, where Schiff was to present himself to be censured, and shouted “shame, shame!”
The censure vote was the unsurprising end of a two-week quest by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) to have Schiff officially admonished for various statements and actions her resolution alleged were unfair to Trump. She had offered a similar resolution last week, but it was tabled after 20 Republicans, possibly concerned by its suggestion of fining Schiff, crossed the aisle to vote with Democrats.
Luna’s almost-identical new resolution, without the fine language, said Schiff had “abused” his position as ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee by spreading “false accusations that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia” in 2016. It also made other allegations against Schiff.
While a special prosecutor and an inspector general have found fault with some procedural aspects of how the 2016 FBI investigation into Trump’s campaign began, it is unquestioned that the Russians took “active measures” to interfere in the 2016 U.S. election and that a high-ranking Trump campaign operative, Paul Manafort, worked with a Russian agent by giving him campaign polling data.
Schiff, who is running for the Senate, defended himself on the House floor, saying he had done his duty to warn Americans about the danger Trump posed to national security.
“You honor me with your enmity,” he said of Republicans. “You will never deter me from doing my duty.”
Schiff specifically referenced Manafort’s actions as among the activities that constituted collusion and said Republicans refused to be honest about it.
“You must not call that collusion, though that is its proper name, as the country well knows,” he said.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who was a manager in Trump’s second Senate impeachment trial, said the effort to admonish Schiff was evidence of the collapse of the Republican Party into an “authoritarian cult of personality.”
“We don’t censure members over a difference of opinion,” he said.
Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) supported the resolution, accusing Schiff of bias when investigating Trump and his campaign’s activities.
“He was hasty. He was prejudiced. And he was wrong,” Ogles said.
Schiff’s censure was a victory for Trump, who had posted a supporter’s list of the 20 Republicans who had helped Democrats derail Luna’s resolution on his social media site last week. The supporter called them “the Coward 20.”
Luna said when the first resolution was tabled that she feared some of her fellow Republicans had not fully read the 574-word document or were spooked by its suggestion that a $16 million fine be imposed on Schiff.
All of the 20 Republicans who voted to table the resolution last week voted Wednesday against tabling the new one.
Luna’s resolution — supported by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who had suggested punishing Schiff the day serial liar Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) was indicted — may open the floodgates to other, similarly symbolic resolutions.
Washington — A revived GOP-led effort to censure Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff for his role in congressional investigations of former President Donald Trump moved ahead on Wednesday, one week after a similar measure failed.
Last week, 20 Republicans joined Democrats in voting to table the earlier resolution, blocking that effort to publicly reprimand him. Republican Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, an ardent Trump supporter, then tweaked the measure to remove a potential $16 million fine for Schiff that several Republicans considered unconstitutional.
Democrats tried to table the new resolution on Wednesday, but the vote failed 208 to 218, with all Republicans voting to advance the measure. The motion to table needed a simple majority to pass.
Luna introduced the resolution as privileged, fast-tracking its consideration under House rules. The chamber immediately began debating the matter after the vote on the motion to table, teeing up a vote on final passage as early as Wednesday evening.
“As chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff launched an all out political campaign built on baseless distortions against a sitting U.S. president at the expense of every single citizen in this country and the honor of the House of Representatives,” Luna said Wednesday, calling the resolution “a clear vote between right and wrong.”
Censure is essentially a formal public reprimand by the House to punish misconduct that falls short of warranting expulsion. The censured member typically must stand on the House floor as the resolution detailing his or her offenses is read aloud.
Twenty-four House lawmakers have been censured in U.S. history, most recently in 2021, when GOP Rep. Paul Gosar was censured for tweeting a video depicting violence against President Biden and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
The revised resolution calls for the House Ethics Committee to investigate Schiff, the former chair of the House Intelligence Committee and current candidate for Senate in California, for his alleged “falsehoods, misrepresentations and abuses of sensitive information.”
It claims Schiff “abused” the public’s trust “by alleging he had evidence of collusion” between Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and Russia and also accuses him of acting “dishonestly and dishonorably.”
Schiff and Democrats have framed the effort to censure him as retaliation for his prominent role in Trump’s first impeachment, and said it is meant to distract from the federal indictment alleging Trump hid classified documents and obstructed the government’s efforts to retrieve them. Schiff has been highly critical of Trump and served as the House’s lead prosecutor in his first impeachment trial.
“To my Republican colleagues who introduced this resolution, I thank you,” Schiff said Wednesday. “You honor me with your enmity. You flatter me with this falsehood. You, who are the authors of a big lie about the last election, must condemn the truth-tellers and I stand proudly before you. Your words tell me that I have been effective in the defense of our democracy and I am grateful.”
Schiff said he will wear the “partisan vote as a badge of honor.”
Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin said the vote shows the Republican Party has become “an authoritarian cult of personality” after Trump said the Republicans who voted to table the resolution last week should face primary challengers.
“The GOP simply has no ideas for our economy, no ideas for our country, and no ideas for our people,” Raskin said. “But is on an embarrassing revenge tour on behalf of Donald Trump, who treats them like a ventriloquist dummy.”
