In a recent episode of Meet the Press, Russia collusion hoaxer Senator-elect Adam Schiff voiced his loud disapproval of President-elect Trump’s cabinet picks—except for one: Marco Rubio.
Kristen Welker opened the segment by probing Schiff about the ongoing investigation into Congressman Matt Gaetz.
Schiff insisted that the report should be made public, arguing that taxpayers deserve transparency regarding the actions of their elected officials.
Kristen Welker:
Let’s start off by talking about Matt Gaetz… The House Ethics Committee has launched this investigation. Details of it started to leak out this week to some members on Capitol Hill. But do you think that report should be made public?Adam Schiff:
I do think it should be made public. I don’t think that when someone decides to avoid public accountability, they simply leave Congress and make it all go away. The taxpayers paid for that analysis and that report. I think they have a 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 like on a party-line basis, Republicans are saying, “No, the public has no right to see this,” and what’s more, “We don’t want the public to see this.” But it underscores to me why the President’s lack of background checks for his nominees is flawed. He may have still decided to nominate Matt Gaetz, but if they did a thorough vetting, he may have decided not to.That vetting process, having the FBI review potential nominees, is not only to protect the public interest; it’s to protect the President-elect’s interest to make sure that he’s not embarrassed by nominating someone like Matt Gaetz.
So I think it shows a flaw in the process that he even got nominated. Perhaps with respect to Hegseth as well, had a thorough investigation been done, it might have influenced the President-elect’s decision to nominate him in the first place.
As the conversation shifted to Trump’s cabinet picks, serial liar Schiff wasted no time launching into a tirade against nominees Pam Bondi and Tulsi Gabbard, both of whom he painted as dangerously unqualified.
His criticisms of Bondi centered on her unapologetic support for election integrity and her willingness to call out prosecutors weaponizing their offices for political gain.
Meanwhile, Gabbard, a vocal critic of endless wars, was derided for her so-called “Kremlin talking points” and “fondness for Bashar al-Assad”—accusations recycled straight from the Democrat Party’s greatest hits of smear tactics.
Gabbard, a combat veteran and former Democratic congresswoman, has been a thorn in the side of the establishment for years. Her opposition to reckless foreign policy interventions and her calls for government accountability have made her a target of relentless character assassination.
Kristen Welker:
Let me ask you big picture. Obviously, President-elect Trump has now said he wants to pick Pam Bondi to serve as his attorney general. He has swept the battleground states. He won the popular vote. Republicans have control of the House and the Senate. Do you think that the President-elect should have his picks confirmed?Adam Schiff:
Well, I think the President has a right to nominate anyone who’s qualified, who has good judgment and good character. Does that mean he’s guaranteed the Senate approval of whoever he nominates? Some of these nominations are deeply problematic.I’ll be interested in the confirmation process. Will Pam Bondi continue to tell the big lie even under oath? Is she going to continue to say that the Justice Department should be prosecuting prosecutors who brought valid evidence before a grand jury?
A grand jury found probable cause to believe Donald Trump committed crimes. That’s not a basis to go after them. So she’s going to have to answer tough questions.
Tulsi Gabbard concerns me a great deal—that someone who has echoed Kremlin talking points, someone who has appeared to make common cause with someone like Bashar al-Assad, who gasses his own people, and someone who has no experience whatsoever, not even on the intelligence committee in Congress, should be running those agencies. They’re going to have tough questions to answer.
[…]
Kristen Welker:
Let’s talk about your former colleague, who you just mentioned, Tulsi Gabbard. She’s been picked as Director of National Intelligence. Just last week, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz said Gabbard was “likely a Russian asset.” Do you share those concerns, or is that overstated?Adam Schiff:
Well, I wouldn’t describe her that way. But I would say this: She has certainly echoed talking points for the Kremlin. She appeared to have taken Putin’s side when he invaded Ukraine. And her fondness for Bashar al-Assad, someone who is gassing his own people, calls her judgment deeply into question.So here you have someone with very questionable judgment and no experience. That’s not a great recipe for running the agencies. The problem is, if our foreign allies don’t trust the head of our intelligence agencies, they’ll stop sharing information with us, and that makes our country less safe. So I have profound concerns about her.
Despite his staunch opposition to Trump’s nominees, Schiff was quick to shower praise on Senator Marco Rubio, calling him “unquestionably qualified” for his role.
Kristen Welker:
Senator-elect Schiff, is there anyone on this list who, at this very moment, you think you could vote yes on, you could support?Adam Schiff:
For example, I think Marco Rubio is enormously well qualified for the job for which he’s been nominated. I still want to ask questions. I’m not going to completely prejudge even him, but he’s unquestionably qualified, and there are others as well. Some really stand out for the risk they would present to the American people.Kristen Welker:
So right now, Senator Rubio would have your vote as a yes?Adam Schiff:
Well, I’m strongly inclined that way. I don’t want to prejudge completely because you never can tell what comes out in the vetting process, but he’s unquestionably qualified.
WATCH:
