In the new episode of Press Meet, Russian collusion hoaxer Senator-elect Adam Schiff voiced his loud disapproval of President-elect Trump’s cabinet elect-except for one: Marco Rubio.
Kristen Welker opened the segment by examining Schiff about the ongoing investigation into Congressman Matt Gaetz.
Schiff argued that the report should be made public, arguing that taxpayers should be transparent about the actions of elected officials.
Kristen Welker:
Let’s start by talking about Matt Gaetz… The House Ethics Committee has launched this investigation. Those details began leaking out this week to some members on Capitol Hill. But do you think the report should be made public?Adam Schiff:
I think it should be made public. I don’t think that if someone decides to avoid public accountability, they just leave Congress and get rid of everything. Taxpayers pay for these analyzes and these reports. I think they have the right to see it.Kristen Welker:
Do you think it will be made public? Do you have any indication?Adam Schiff:
I don’t know. It seems on the basis of the party, Republicans are saying, “No, the public has no right to see this,” and others, “We don’t want the public to see this.” But it underscores for me why the President’s lack of background checks for nominations is flawed. They may still decide to nominate Matt Gaetz, but if they do a full vetting, they may decide not to.The vetting process, having potential candidates for FBI review, is not only to protect the public interest; it is to protect the interests of the President-elect to ensure that he is not embarrassed by the nomination of someone like Matt Gaetz.
So I think this shows a flaw in the process by which he was even nominated. Perhaps the Hegseth thing too, if investigated carefully, may have influenced the President-elect’s decision to nominate him in the first place.
When the conversation turned to Trump’s cabinet selection, Schiff lied serially in no time to oppose the nominations of Pam Bondi and Tulsi Gabbard, both of whom were painted as dangerously unqualified.
His criticism of Bondi focused on his unapologetic support for electoral integrity and his willingness to call out prosecutors who use the office for political gain.
Meanwhile, Gabbard, a vocal critic of the endless war, was mocked for what she called a “Kremlin talking point” and “pleasure for Bashar al-Assad” — accusations recycled straight from the Democratic Party’s biggest smear tactic.
Gabbard, a combat veteran and former Democratic congressman, has been a thorn in the establishment for years. His opposition to reckless foreign policy interventions and calls for government accountability have made him the target of relentless character assassination.
Kristen Welker:
Let me ask you a big picture question. Obviously, President-elect Trump is now saying he wants to nominate Pam Bondi for attorney general. He has swept the country of war. He won the popular vote. Republicans have control of the House and Senate. Do you think the president-elect should be confirmed in his election?Adam Schiff:
Well, I believe the President has the right to nominate anyone who is qualified, who has good judgment and good character. Does that mean he guarantees Senate approval for whoever he nominates? Some of these nominations are very problematic.I will be interested in the confirmation process. Will Pam Bondi continue to lie even under oath? Will he continue to say that the Justice Department should prosecute prosecutors who bring valid evidence before a grand jury?
A grand jury found probable cause to believe Donald Trump committed a crime. That is no basis for following him. So he had to answer a tough question.
Tulsi Gabbard is very concerned with me – that there are people who speak the words of the Kremlin, people who seem to have a common goal with people like Bashar al-Assad, who is burning his own nation, and people who have no experience, not even one. intelligence committee in Congress, must run the agency. They will have difficult questions to answer.
(…)
Kristen Welker:
Let’s talk about a former colleague, who you just mentioned, Tulsi Gabbard. He was selected as the Director of National Intelligence. Just last week, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz said Gabbard was “likely a Russian asset.” Do you share concerns, or are they overstated?Adam Schiff:
Well, I wouldn’t describe him that way. But I will say this: He always echoes the talking points for the Kremlin. He appears to have taken Putin’s side when he invaded Ukraine. And his fondness for Bashar al-Assad, the man who burned his own people, makes him questionable.So here you have someone with a lot of judgment and no experience. That’s not a good recipe for running an agency. The problem is, if our foreign allies don’t trust our intelligence chiefs, they will stop sharing information with us, and that makes our country less secure. So I am very worried about him.
Despite his strong opposition to Trump’s nomination, Schiff was quick to praise Senator Marco Rubio, calling him “impossibly qualified” for the role.
Kristen Welker:
Senator-elect Schiff, is there anyone on this list that, at this point, you think you can vote for yes, you can support?Adam Schiff:
For example, I think Marco Rubio is very qualified for the job he has been nominated for. I still want to ask. I will not completely prejudice even him, but he is unquestionably qualified, and there are others as well. Few actually stand up to the risks that the American people will be exposed to.Kristen Welker:
So now, Senator Rubio is going to vote for you huh?Adam Schiff:
Well, I really tend to do that. I don’t want to prejudge completely because you can’t say what comes out in the vetting process, but it is unquestionably qualified.
WATCH: