Category: House

Squad members alone in calls to impeach Clarence Thomas after bombshell report

Posted on (Updated by Stephen Neukam

Three members of "The Squad" have renewed calls for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to be impeached following a bombshell report on his relationship with a major Republican donor, however their Democratic colleagues have so far called for lesser measures.

Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) — all members of the progressive “Squad” — have called for Thomas to be impeached following revelations that he received lavish gifts and trips from a Republican billionaire donor over the course of his career on the court. 

The ProPublica report that exposed the alleged gifts sparked outrage from Democrats, but the trio of progressive House Democrats have so far been alone in calls for his impeachment.

“This is beyond party or partisanship,” Ocasio-Cortez said on Twitter last week. “This degree of corruption is shocking — almost cartoonish. Thomas must be impeached.”

“I've said it before and I'll say it again: Clarence Thomas needs to be impeached,” Omar said on Twitter on the same day.

Tlaib noted public confidence in the court was at “an all time low” and blasted Thomas for accepting" luxury trips from a billionaire mega-donor while doing the bidding of right-wing extremists from the bench.”

“Thomas must be impeached and SCOTUS needs a binding code of ethics,” Tlaib said on Twitter.

Thomas has defended his actions, saying he was advised early in his tenure on the court that he did not have to report trips from "close personal friends."

"I have endeavored to follow that counsel throughout my tenure, and have always sought to comply with the disclosure guidelines,” Thomas added.

While those House progressives have called for Thomas to be impeached, other Democrats have backed a probe into Thomas and efforts to create an enforceable code of conduct.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the top lawmaker on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said his panel would act on the allegations laid out in the report.

“The highest court in the land shouldn’t have the lowest ethical standards,” Durbin said in a statement last week. “Today’s report demonstrates, yet again, that Supreme Court Justices must be held to an enforceable code of conduct… the Senate Judiciary Committee will act.”

A group of 16 congressional Democrats, including Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), sent a letter to Chief Supreme Court Justice John Roberts urging him to launch an investigation into the claims against Thomas.

“We believe that it is your duty as Chief Justice ‘to safeguard public faith in the judiciary,’ and that fulfilling that duty requires swift, thorough, independent and transparent investigation into these allegations,” the letter reads.

Rep. Dan Goldman endorses Gallego for Senate

Posted on (Updated by Mychael Schnell

Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) endorsed Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) for Senate on Thursday, marking the Arizona Democrat's third endorsement from a House lawmaker as he vies for the seat currently held by Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.).

“Now, more than ever, our country needs elected officials who stand firm in the face of extremist Republicans who are threatening our legal and democratic institutions,” Goldman said in a statement. “As a Marine veteran who fought for our democracy overseas, Ruben understands the importance of the rule of law and, more importantly, that no one is above it —not even a former president.”

“Ruben is exactly the kind of elected official and candidate this moment demands and I am proud to endorse his campaign for United States Senate,” he added.

Gallego — who represents Arizona’s 3rd Congressional District — announced a campaign for Sinema’s seat in January after much speculation about whether or not he would jump in the race. This week, his campaign revealed that it raised $3.7 million in the first quarter.

Sinema, who changed her party affiliation from Democrat to Independent in December, has not yet indicated if she will run for reelection next year. Her strong fundraising, however, suggests she may — the senator will report $9.9 million on hand following the most recent fundraising quarter, according to Politico.

Gallego is currently the only candidate in the race from any party.

Despite Sinema not yet entering the race, Gallego has gone on the offensive. In an interview with The Associated Press around his launch, the congressman said, “I’m better for this job than Kyrsten Sinema because I haven’t forgotten where I came from.”

“I think she clearly has forgotten where she came from. Instead of meeting with the people that need help, she meets with the people that are already powerful,” he added.

Gallego has picked up a number of endorsements since launching his bid, including from Reps. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) and Seth Moulton (D-Mass.). He welcomed Goldman’s support on Thursday.

“I’m deeply honored to have earned the trust and support of my friend and colleague Dan Goldman,” Gallego said. “From leading the first impeachment inquiry against Trump to fighting for his constituents and our country in Congress, he is a champion and critical voice in our fights for democracy and justice.”

“I’m grateful to have his endorsement as we fight for the future of Arizona and our country,” he added.

Ocasio-Cortez calls for Thomas impeachment after report of undisclosed gifts from GOP donor

Posted on (Updated by Stephen Neukam

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) is calling for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to be impeached following a report that he accepted luxurious gifts from a billionaire Republican donor for decades.

For years, Thomas took luxury trips and outings on yachts and private jets owned by Dallas businessman Harlan Crow, according to an investigation by ProPublica. Thomas did not disclose the travel, the investigation found. Crow has donated lavishly to Republican candidates.

Ocasio-Cortez blasted the alleged actions as an “almost cartoonish” level of corruption.

“This is beyond party or partisanship,” Ocasio-Cortez said on Twitter. “This degree of corruption is shocking — almost cartoonish. Thomas must be impeached.”

The New York congresswoman also said the report of Thomas’s alleged misconduct reflects negatively on Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. 

“Barring some dramatic change, this is what the Roberts court will be known for: rank corruption, erosion of democracy, and the stripping of human rights,” Ocasio-Cortez continued.

Ocasio-Cortez is not the only Democratic lawmaker to blast Thomas after the report was released. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said the news called for an independent investigation.

“This cries out for the kind of independent investigation that the Supreme Court — and only the Supreme Court, across the entire government— refuses to perform,” Whitehouse said on Twitter.

Crow in a statement did not deny the allegations that Thomas had accepted such trips from him over the years, but he said the Supreme Court justice never asked for the gifts.

“The hospitality we have extended to the Thomas’s over the years is no different from the hospitality we have extended to our many other dear friends,” Crow said in a statement. “Justice Thomas and Ginni never asked for any of this hospitality,” referring to the justice's wife, Ginni Thomas.

Trump charges aggravate partisan tensions — in Congress and beyond

Posted on (Updated by Emily Brooks

The historic arraignment of former President Trump on Tuesday sparked an immediate — and highly caustic — dispute across Congress and the country, exacerbating tensions between Trump's GOP allies and his Democratic critics just as House Republicans have added a probe into the Manhattan District Attorney to their long list of investigative priorities. 

Those hostilities were evident in the demonstrations outside the Manhattan courthouse where Trump appeared to face 34 felony charges related to hush payments to an adult film actress in 2016.

They emerged further on cable news, where lawmakers in both camps jousted over the nature and propriety of the case brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, against the Republican frontrunner in the 2024 presidential race.

And they were glaring on social media, where Republicans howled about political interference in elections, Democrats demanded equal treatment under the law and both sides sought to get an upper hand in the public relations battle heading into next year’s presidential contest. 

The debate — in many ways an extension of the dispute over Trump that followed the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol — did not lack for melodrama. 

Trump’s fiercest defenders compared the former president to Jesus and fat-shamed Bragg, while Republicans in general accused Democrats of using Trump’s arrest as a way to cling to power.

“Trump is joining some of the most incredible people in history being arrested today. Nelson Mandela was arrested, served time in prison. Jesus — Jesus was arrested and murdered by the Roman government,” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) told Right Side Broadcasting host Brian Glenn in New York on Tuesday. 

Greene was drowned out by protesters when making brief comments outside the Manhattan courthouse before Trump’s arrest. Embattled Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) also made a brief appearance outside the courthouse.

Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-Texas), who served as physician to the president during the Trump and Obama administrations, referred to Bragg as “FAT ALVIN” on Twitter, urging him to “go ahead and celebrate with another jelly donut, but get ready to answer some serious questions from Congress!” In a subsequent statement, Jackson called Bragg a “spineless weasel.”

And House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.), who like most House Republicans sought to overturn the 2020 election results, said Bragg’s case proves that “there is nothing [Democrats] won’t do to hold onto power.” 

“Today is a historic low for our nation,” he tweeted.  

Even some of Trump’s harshest GOP critics defended him against Bragg’s indictment.

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) said in a statement that while he finds Trump “unfit for office,” he thought Bragg’s case “sets a dangerous precedent for criminalizing political opponents and damages the public’s faith in our justice system.”

Democrats largely stopped short of celebrating Trump’s arrest, urging protesters to be peaceful and defending the judicial branch from congressional interference. But they wasted no time condemning Republicans for attacks on Bragg.

Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) also appeared outside the courthouse ahead of Trump's arrest, saying Bragg "simply followed the facts where they led" and criticizing Greene for rallying outside.

“Marjorie Taylor Greene needs to take her ass back to Washington and do something about gun violence, do something about affordable housing, do something about childhood poverty, do something about climate change,” Bowman said in a video reposted to his Twitter account.

He added, “Do your freaking job Marjorie Taylor Greene, you don’t need to be in New York City talking that nonsense.”

"Instead of reflecting on the importance of holding leaders accountable to our American democracy, prominent Republicans have instead called Mr. Trump the victim, castigated the New York District Attorney, denigrated the justice system, and fomented national unrest,” said Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.).

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) also weighed in, suggesting Republicans are abusing their authority by going after Bragg. 

“I believe that Mr. Trump will have a fair trial that follows the facts and the law. There’s no place in our justice system for any outside influence or intimidation in the legal process. As the trial proceeds, protest is an American right but all protests must be peaceful,” Schumer said. 

Other Democrats were more strident, accusing Republicans of “bullying” law enforcers to protect a political ally. 

“In a desperate attempt to protect Mr. Trump, the most extreme House Republicans are already trying to bully the law enforcement officers involved,” Rep. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said in a statement. “I do not know how this case will be decided, but I do know that DA Bragg will not be deterred or intimidated by the political stunts Jim Jordan and Kevin McCarthy throw at him."

Some were pithier in their reactions. Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.) posted a photo of Trump on Twitter with the caption “Karma.”

The White House has declined to comment on Trump’s indictment and arrest.

Following Trump’s announcement last month that he expected to be arrested in the hush money probe, McCarthy (R-Calif.), the House Speaker, promised that Republicans would investigate Bragg. Jordan (R-Ohio), the Judiciary chairman, soon led two other committee chairs with a request for Bragg to testify to Congress about the case.

“Members of Congress simply should not be commenting or interfering in the legal process and we should let it play out,” Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) said on MSNBC just before Trump’s arraignment.

McCarthy reiterated his commitment to investigating Bragg after Trump’s court appearance on Tuesday, accusing him of trying to interfere in the “democratic process” and pushing back on Bragg’s suggestions that Congress does not have the authority to investigate the indictment. 

“Bragg’s weaponization of the federal justice process will be held accountable by Congress,” McCarthy tweeted, noting that Bragg’s office admitted that approximately $5,000 spent on the investigation came from federal funds.

The heightened partisan tensions come at a volatile time in Washington, just as leaders in both parties are set to launch into a high-stakes battle over the size and scope of the federal government with enormous implications for the economy. A failure to raise the debt ceiling could lead to a government default; an impasse over government funding could lead to a shutdown; and there’s been no sign, even before Trump’s arrest, that the sides were ready to ease their demands for the sake of a deal. 

The question of Trump’s fate will not let up on members of Congress any time soon. Trump’s next in-person court appearance was set for Dec. 4 — about two months before the official start of the 2024 Republican presidential primary race, which kicks off with the Iowa caucuses on Feb. 5.

Next year’s election loomed large over Tuesday’s arraignment, with some of Trump’s GOP allies rejecting the notion that his indictment will influence his 2024 bid.

“President Trump continues to skyrocket in the polls, and just like with the Russia hoax and both sham impeachments, President Trump will defeat this latest witch-hunt, defeat Joe Biden, and will be sworn in as President of the United States of America in January 2025,” House GOP Conference Chair Elise Stefanik (N.Y.) said in a statement.

Greene and other GOP members of Congress are set to join Trump at his Mar-a-Lago residence on Tuesday evening, where the former president is scheduled to deliver remarks after he did not speak to reporters during his roughly two hours at the Manhattan courthouse.

Dems react to Trump indictment with glee — and anxiety

Posted on (Updated by Mike Lillis

House Democrats reacted with mixed emotions this week to the historic indictment of former President Trump, with some cheering the move with bald jubilation and others approaching much more cautiously ahead of Trump’s expected arraignment on Tuesday. 

While both camps are united behind the central premise that no one in America is above the law, the tonal contrast highlights both the toxic nature of Trump’s relationship with his congressional rivals and the Democrats’ deep-seeded anxiety that the indictment will only invigorate his conservative base and make him a more formidable force in the race for the White House next year.

Fueling that divide is the nature of the case being brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D), which centers around Trump’s role in providing hush payments to an adult film actress more than six years ago — a salacious saga divorced from the more serious allegations facing the former president, which relate to his role in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol and efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.

On one side of the divide are Democrats who cheered Bragg’s decision with evident glee. That group is composed largely of liberal and minority lawmakers, including members of the far-left “squad,” who have long accused Trump of being a racist and are now relishing an indictment they view as karmic justice. 

“Grand Jury votes to indict Trump!” tweeted Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), one of three Muslim lawmakers in Congress who has been a frequent target of Islamophobic Trump attacks. 

“It’s time that we ensure Trump is banned from running for any public office again,” echoed Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.).

Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.) shared in the celebration, saying the indictment is “one of many steps” toward eliminating Trump as a threat to fair elections.

“I will always believe that this twice-impeached former president is a threat to our democracy,” he tweeted.  

Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) tweeted a short clip of a crowd of women giving a standing ovation. 

And Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.) responded to Trump’s indictment with a single word: “Good.”  

The celebratory mood is not being shared — at least not publicly — by a long list of other Democratic lawmakers, who are treading more carefully into the explosive debate. Those voices, which include members of Democratic leadership, have been no less critical of Trump over his political career, but are taking pains not to jump to conclusions before seeing the charges — which remain under seal — or reach a verdict before a jury does.

“This is not a moment to celebrate. This is a terrible moment for the country. But no one is above the law,” Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) said on Twitter. “Those lock her up chants that people were chanting like hyenas in a stadium around the country were never funny, perhaps they now understand why.”

There are also lingering anxieties that Trump, the current frontrunner in the early field seeking the GOP presidential nomination, will get a boost from Bragg’s decision, as Republicans — even some of Trump’s 2024 rivals — race to defend the former president from what they consider a politically motivated witch hunt designed solely to damage his presidential prospects.

Shedding a no-holds-barred approach to Trump in the past, many Democrats have adopted a neutral tone in response to the indictment, keeping a distance from the judicial process to let the wheels of the courts grind away. 

“No one is above the law, and everyone has the right to a trial to prove innocence,” Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the former Speaker who was a target of the pro-Trump mob on Jan. 6, said in a brief and subdued statement. “Hopefully, the former President will peacefully respect the system, which grants him that right.”

“In America we believe in the rule of law,” echoed Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), a fierce Trump critic. “We should wait to hear from the grand jury before jumping to conclusions.”

Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.), who was among the managers of Trump’s first impeachment, called it “a somber day for our nation.” 

And House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) adopted the same muted tone, characterizing it as “a serious moment” for the country. 

“A jury of Donald Trump’s peers will now determine his legal fate,” Jeffries tweeted.  

Trump’s GOP allies, meanwhile, have rallied in his defense, characterizing the indictment — the first against any president, sitting or former — as a blatant “weaponization” of government by Democrats to take down a political rival. 

“It's Trump derangement,” Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) said Thursday evening as he was leaving his Capitol Hill office. “It's an illness of hatred that just — it shouldn't be in American politics.”

Wilson said House Republicans will move “immediately” to uncover the details of Bragg's probe, and he has confidence that GOP investigators — notably Rep. Bryan Steil (R-Wis.), chairman of the Administration Committee — will demonstrate that Bragg’s prosecution has been politically motivated from the start.

“We're going to find out, from the inside, as to their correspondence and communications,” he said.

Bragg’s case revolves around a $130,000 hush payment made by Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer and fixer, to the adult actress Stormy Daniels just before the 2016 election in return for her silence about an alleged affair with Trump a decade earlier — an affair Trump denies. 

A Manhattan grand jury voted Thursday to indict Trump, who is expected to be arraigned in New York on Tuesday. The specific charges remain unknown, sealed until Trump’s appearance, but reports from CNN and NBC indicate he will face around 30 counts related to business fraud.  

Not all of Trump’s critics cheered the arrival of the indictment this week. 

Trump is also facing a series of separate criminal investigations into his conduct, including his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results and the discovery of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, his resort-residence in South Florida. And some Democrats have hoped that the Justice Department, which is investigating Trump on several fronts, would have moved more quickly on those other cases to lend more gravity to their underlying charge that Trump is unfit to serve as president for another term. 

Those voices fear that Bragg’s case, by coming first, will only bolster the argument from Trump and his allies that Democrats are pursuing “frivolous” cases designed solely to damage Trump politically. 

“After inciting an insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, pressuring local officials to overturn the 2020 election, receiving financial kickbacks from foreign powers, and numerous other crimes during his presidency, it’s embarrassing and infuriating that the first indictment against Trump is about ... Stormy Daniels,” Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, said in a statement.

“The January 6th Select Committee and bold leaders like Jamie Raskin did their job,” he continued. “It’s time for Merrick Garland and the Justice Department to do theirs.”

Amid the emotional debate, some lawmakers are urging restraint by pointing out an obvious hole in the discussion: No one weighing in knows what charges await Trump next week. 

“Just a reminder,” said Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), “that there is no rule that you have to express your opinion before reading the indictment.”

Democrats hail, Republicans blast Trump indictment

Posted on (Updated by Mychael Schnell

The indictment of former President Trump by a Manhattan grand jury rocked Capitol Hill on Thursday, with Democrats hailing the decision and Republicans blasting what they described as a political witch hunt.

“The indictment of a former president is unprecedented. But so too is the unlawful conduct in which Trump has been engaged,” tweeted Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who served as lead impeachment manager during Trump’s first impeachment trial. “A nation of laws must hold the rich and powerful accountable, even when they hold high office. Especially when they do. To do otherwise is not democracy.”

Some Democrats, including House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), expressed their excitement on Twitter.

“SO Trump finally got indicted! I predicted he would and I predicted that Stormy Daniels would get him! Sometimes justice works!” Waters said.

Others stressed letting the legal process play out and that "no one is above the law."

"There should be no outside political influence, intimidation or interference in the case,” Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said. "I encourage both Mr. Trump’s critics and supporters to let the process proceed peacefully and according to the law.”

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) tweeted that “No one is above the law, and everyone has the right to a trial to prove innocence. Hopefully, the former President will peacefully respect the system, which grants him that right.”

“We must allow the judicial process to continue unimpeded and free from any form of political interference or intimidation," said Democratic Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.).

Republicans, meanwhile, jumped to criticize Bragg, with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) pledging to “hold Alvin Bragg and his unprecedented abuse of power to account” for “this injustice.”

“Alvin Bragg has irreparably damaged our country in an attempt to interfere in our Presidential election,” McCarthy tweeted. “As he routinely frees violent criminals to terrorize the public, he weaponized our sacred system of justice against President Donald Trump.”

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), chair of the House Judiciary Committee and an ally of Trump, summed up the Republican reaction in a one-word tweet: “Outrageous.” And Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) — the chair of the Senate GOP campaign arm — called the indictment “a political prosecution.”

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), chair of the Senate GOP Conference, called the indictment a “politically-motivated prosecution by a far-left activist.”

“If it was anyone other than President Trump, a case like this would never be brought. Instead of ordering political hit jobs, New York prosecutors should focus on getting violent criminals off the streets,” Barrasso said in a statement.

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) similarly called the indictment a “sham” and accused Democrats of “weaponizing government to attack their political opponents.” Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), chair of the House Republican Conference and the only member of House GOP leadership to endorse Trump, called the move “unprecedented election interference” and “a dark day for America,” adding that it would fuel support for Trump in 2024.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) took a more aggressive approach, seeking revenge.

“Our side chants ‘lock her up’ and their side is going to get a mug shot based on a witch hunt. It’s time to change that. Gloves are off,” Greene tweeted.

The Manhattan grand jury voted on Thursday to indict Trump on criminal charges stemming from his role in organizing a hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election, a source familiar with the proceedings confirmed to The Hill. The specific charges, however, remain unknown.

The indictment marks the culmination of a winding investigation by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D), and the end of a days-long waiting game that began when Trump publicly predicted he would be indicted in the case last week.

A trio of House Republican committee chairs sent a letter to Bragg last week — after Trump’s social media announcement — demanding that he sit for a transcribed interview about his investigation. The lawmakers also asked that Bragg provide documents and communications regarding the probe.

Jordan — who also chairs the Judiciary’s Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government — expanded the congressional investigation into Bragg days later, requesting testimony from two prosecutors who resigned from the Manhattan case because of disagreements with Bragg.

"It's Trump derangement," Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) said leaving his Capitol Hill office Thursday evening. "It's an illness of hatred that just — it shouldn't be in American politics. I don't feel that way toward anybody."

Wilson said House Republicans will move "immediately" to uncover the details of Bragg's probe, and he has confidence that GOP investigators — notably Rep. Bryan Steil (R-Wis.), chairman of the Administration Committee who signed the letter to Bragg last week — will demonstrate that Bragg's prosecution has been politically motivated from the start.

"We're going to find out, from the inside, as to their correspondence and communications," he said.

Democrats, meanwhile,

Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.), who served as an impeachment manager during Trump’s first impeachment, said Thursday was “a somber day for our nation.”

“Former President Trump’s indictment reminds us that no one is above the law and that we are all afforded due process and equal protection under the law,” he added on Twitter.

Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) tweeted that the New York indictment “is only the beginning of being held accountable for his crimes.”

“Trump attempted to illegally overturn election results in Georgia and worked to incite the insurrection at the Capitol, both in an effort to overthrow our government to advance his fascist cause,” Bowman said, calling for Trump to be banned from running for public office again.

Trump is also the subject of investigations by the Fulton County, Georgia district attorney’s office — which is looking into his efforts to influence the outcome of the 2020 presidential election — and the Justice Department, which is probing the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol and the mishandling of classified documents.

Attorney General Merrick Garland in November appointed a social counsel to oversee the Justice Department investigations related to Trump.

At least one lawmaker took a softer approach to the news that Trump had been indicted on Thursday, noting that the Manhattan grand jury has not formally announced its decision to charge Trump in the matter.

“Just a reminder that there is no rule that you have to express your opinion before reading the indictment,” Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) wrote on Twitter.

Mike Lillis and Al Weaver contributed. Updated at 8:20 p.m.

Congress ponders TikTok ban after CEO’s grilling

Posted on (Updated by Mychael Schnell

Discussions of a potential ban on TikTok in the United States are expected to heat up this week after the CEO of the social media app was grilled by House members during a blockbuster hearing last week.

Congressional leaders from both chambers and parties have backed bills that could lead to the Chinese-owned app being banned, while Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has explicitly said he would support a national ban on TikTok.

“The House will be moving forward with legislation to protect Americans from the technological tentacles of the Chinese Communist Party,” McCarthy said in a tweet on Sunday.

What that legislation will look like remains unclear, but will likely be a topic of conversation among lawmakers this week.

Also this week, House and Senate committees are slated to hold hearings on recent bank failures, after Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank were seized by regulators earlier this month. The collapses spooked markets and raised concerns about future bank runs.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hold an oversight hearing this week featuring testimony from Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas — his first appearance before the 118th Congress. A number of GOP House members have expressed a desire to impeach Mayorkas.

Additionally, former interim Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz is set to testify at a Senate hearing on the company’s alleged union busting.

On the legislative front, the House is slated to take up a major energy package — given the esteemed H.R. 1 nomenclature — and the Senate is expected to hold a final vote on legislation to repeal the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) for the 1991 Gulf War and the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq.

TikTok in the crosshairs

Fallout from last week’s heated TikTok hearing will likely continue to reverberate on Capitol Hill this week, as lawmakers look toward legislation targeting the app, which is used by some 150 million Americans.

McCarthy on Sunday said the House would move ahead with legislation pertaining to TikTok, writing on Twitter “It's very concerning that the CEO of TikTok can't be honest and admit what we already know to be true—China has access to TikTok user data.”

McCarthy told reporters last week that he supported Congress moving to ban the app, but said he wanted to "make sure we get it right."

TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Thursday, during which lawmakers from both sides of the aisle expressed concerns about national security threats, data privacy, the spread of misinformation and safety for minors.

TikTok is owned by Chinese-based company ByteDance, a fact that has fueled the worries over data privacy and national security. However, TikTok’s chief operating officer blasted the hearing, saying it "felt rooted in xenophobia.”

Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (Ill.), the top Democrat on the House select committee on competition with China, told ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday that the hearing “created more concerns” regarding the popular social media app.

A number of TikTok-related bills have been introduced this Congress, including one bipartisan measure that would give the federal government the ability to ban the app. The Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology Act (RESTRICT Act) would direct the Commerce Department to review and mitigate risks posed by technology that has ties to foreign adversaries, including China, North Korea, Iran, Russia, Cuba and Venezuela.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Senate Republican Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) introduced the bill, which currently has nearly two dozen bipartisan co-sponsors. The White House endorsed the measure earlier this month, and Warner on Sunday said the bill has received “strong interest from the House.”

“I think they wanted to get through their hearing. And, clearly, while I appreciated Mr. Chew's testimony, he just couldn't answer the basic question,” Warner told CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

National Security Council spokesman John Kirby told the CBS show “we'd love to see that passed by the Congress, so that the president can have additional tools and authorities,” referring to the RESTRICT Act.

Separately, House Republicans earlier this month advanced a separate measure — titled the Deterring America’s Technology Adversaries Act (DATA Act) — which would allow the president to possibly ban software applications, including TikTok.

It specifically calls for amending an existing exemption under the Berman Amendments — which restrict the president from regulating informational materials to encourage the exchange of ideas across country — so it does not pertain to “sensitive personal data.”

House Foreign Affairs Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas), the sponsor of the bill, told “Fox News Sunday” this weekend “I think Congress is going to move forward on this.”

“One thing you saw from the hearings in a bipartisan way that both sides of the aisle were standing together saying this is a threat to our children and we need to stop it,” he added.

Hearings on Silicon Valley Bank collapse

Senate and House panels are set to hold hearings this week on this month’s collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, marking the first congressional events looking into the failures.

On Tuesday, the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is scheduled to hold a hearing titled “Recent Bank Failures and the Federal Regulatory Response.” Those slated to testify are Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) Chairman Martin Gruenberg, Federal Reserve System Board of Governors Vice Chairman of Supervision Michael Barr, and Undersecretary for Domestic Finance Nellie Liang.

On Wednesday, the House Financial Services Committee is slated to hold a hearing titled “The Federal Regulators' Response to Recent Bank Failures,” featuring the same trio of witnesses.

Federal regulators took over Silicon Valley Bank on March 10 after a significant run on the bank amid liquidity issues. Two days later, state regulators seized Signature Bank in New York.

The collapse of the two banks sparked a blame game on Capitol Hill. Democrats generally cited a 2018 deregulation bill that former President Trump signed into law, despite the fact that 49 Democrats and one Independent who caucuses with Democrats voted for the measure. Some Republicans, on the other hand, blamed the collapse on Silicon Valley Bank pursuing “woke" strategies, while others have pointed to inflation and raised questions about regulators.

The failures have also prompted discussion about what action Congress can take in response to the collapses.

“The House Financial Services Committee is committed to getting to the bottom of the failures of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank,” House Financial Services Committee Chairman Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) and Ranking Member Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) wrote in a statement.

“This hearing will allow us to begin to understand why and how these banks failed,” the pair continued. “We will conduct this hearing without fear or favor to get the answers the American people deserve.”

Mayorkas to testify before Senate panel

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas is heading to Capitol Hill this week for his first hearing before the 118th Congress. The DHS secretary is slated to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday at 10 a.m. for an oversight hearing.

The hearing comes as Republican lawmakers, particularly those in the House, have harshly criticized Mayorkas, arguing that he has not made enough of an effort to secure the southern border and decrease the influx of migrants into the U.S.

In February, a coalition of House Republicans introduced a second impeachment article against Mayorkas. Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), the sponsor, accused him of being the “chief architect of the migration and drug invasion at our southern border,” and said the increase in migration was a “willful and intentional” violation of the secretary’s oath of office.

House Republicans, however, have been split on how to move ahead on Mayorkas.

Former Starbucks CEO Schultz to testify

Former Starbucks interim CEO Howard Schultz is scheduled to testify before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee this week on the coffee chain’s treatment of union organizing efforts.

The hearing, titled “No Company Is Above the Law: The Need to End Illegal Union Busting at Starbucks,” is scheduled to begin on Wednesday at 10 a.m.

Schultz’s testimony comes after weeks of back-and-forth between the executive and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has accused the company of not bargaining in good faith after a number of employees working at shops across the country have unionized.

More than 350 of the company’s stores have voted to unionize since the first one, in Buffalo, N.Y., voted to do so in December 2021. Starbucks has tried to crack down on the unionizing efforts by utilizing methods that, according to the National Labor Relations Board, are unlawful.

Sanders announced earlier this month that the Senate panel would vote on issuing Schultz a subpoena. But before the vote, Schultz agreed to testify. Last week, Schultz — who was set to step down in the beginning of next month — announced that he was stepping down immediately, two weeks earlier than planned.

“I look forward to hearing from Mr. Schultz as to when he intends to end his illegal anti-union activities and begin signing fair first contracts with the unions," Sanders wrote in a statement last week.

House to take up energy package; Senate expected to hold final vote on AUMF

The House this week is scheduled to consider a major energy package, titled the Lower Energy Costs Act. The legislation received the title of H.R. 1, signaling that it is a top priority for the House Republican conference.

The package aims to, broadly speaking, accelerate the approval process for energy projects. It also includes provisions that zero in on bolstering mining and domestic production of oil and gas.

The office of House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) said the measure “reduces expenses across the board for American families by unleashing American energy and restoring our energy independence” in a floor lookout released Sunday night.

In the upper chamber, senators this week are expected to hold a final vote on a bill to repeal the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) for the Invasion of Iraq and the 1991 Gulf War AUMF. The Senate advanced the legislation in a 68-27 vote earlier this month.

A cloture vote is scheduled for Monday evening, and then the chamber could vote on a number of amendments. Final passage could come on Tuesday or Wednesday, sending the measure to the House.

McCarthy signaled support for the legislation last week, telling reporters during the House GOP retreat in Orlando “I’m into it.”

“I don’t have a problem repealing that,” he added.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) will work from home this week after announcing this weekend that he completed impatient therapy following a fall that left him with a concussion.

Senate, House committee hearings

A number of Senate and House committees are scheduled to hold hearings this week on various topics, including the situation at the southern border and the 2022 midterm elections.

  • House Oversight and Accountability’s Subcommittee on Health Care and Financial Services: “FDA Oversight Part I: The Infant Formula Shortage”
    • When: Tuesday at 10 a.m.
    • Witness: Frank Yiannas, Former deputy commissioner of food policy and response at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
  • House Oversight and Accountability’s Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic: “The Consequences of School Closures: Intended and Unintended”
    • When: Tuesday at 10 a.m.
    • Witnesses: David Zwei, author and investigative journalist at The Atlantic, New York Magazine, The Free Press; Tracy Beth Høeg, physical medicine and rehabilitation specialist, epidemiologist, private practice physician; Virginia Gentles, director of the Education Freedom Center at the Independent Women’s Forum
  • House Committee on Homeland Security Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Accountability: “Biden’s Growing Border Crisis: Death, Drugs, and Disorder on the Northern Border”
    • When: Tuesday at 10 a.m.
    • Witnesses
      • Panel I: Reps. Claudia Tenney (R-N.Y.), Mike Kelly (R-Pa.), Brian Higgins (D-N.Y.), Pete Stauber (R-Minn.)
      • Panel II: Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council; Robert Quinn, commissioner of New Hampshire’s Department of Safety; Laura Dawson, executive director of the Future Borders Coalition; Andrew R. Arthur, resident fellow in law and policy and the Center for Immigration Studies
  • House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials: “Government Response to East Palestine: Ensuring Safety and Transparency for the Community”
    • When: Tuesday at 10 a.m.
    • Witnesses: Debra Shore, regional administrator for Region Five at the Environmental Protection Agency; Anne Vogel, director of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency; Wesley J. Vins, health commissioner of the Columbiana County (Ohio) General Health District
  • House Oversight and Accountability Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs: “Examining Progressivism’s Impact on an All-Volunteer Military”
    • When: Tuesday at 2 p.m.
    • Witnesses: Jeremy Hunt, media fellow at the Hudson Institute; Brent Sadler, senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation’s Center for National Defense; Meaghan Mobbs, senior fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum
  • House Committee on Oversight and Accountability: “Overdue Oversight of the Capital City: Part I”
    • When: Wednesday at 10 a.m.
    • Witnesses: D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson; D.C. Councilmember Charles Allen; D.C. Chief Financial Officer Glen Lee; D.C. Police Union Chairman Greggory Pemberton
  • House Foreign Affairs Committee: “Oversight, Transparency, and Accountability of Ukraine Assistance”
    • When: Wednesday at 10 a.m.
    • Witnesses: Diana R. Shaw, deputy inspector general performing the duties of the Inspector General at the State Department; Nicole L. Angarella, acting deputy inspector general, performing the duties of the Inspector General at the U.S. Agency for International Development; Robert P. Storch, inspector general at the Defense Department
  • Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government: Examine the Missouri v. Biden case
    • When: Thursday at 9 a.m.
    • Witnesses: Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.); Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry; D. John Sauer, special assistant attorney general at the Louisiana Department of Justice

Squeezed by investigations, Trump escalates violent rhetoric

Posted on (Updated by Mike Lillis

Under increasing pressure from state and federal investigators, former President Trump escalated his violent rhetoric this week, heightening tensions as prosecutors weigh whether to bring criminal charges and sparking sharp criticism from Democrats, who are warning of another Jan. 6.

In several social media posts over the past two days, Trump appeared to threaten Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D) with a baseball bat and warned any indictments brought against him may lead to "potential death & destruction" around the country.

The messages were remarkably direct, even for a figure with a long history of promoting violence, and they've led to new warnings from Trump's critics that the former president is aggravating partisan hostilities and inflaming national unrest. 

"It's dangerous, and it's obviously a sign that the pressure of the moment is getting to him," said Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), who headed the House select committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack. 

"I'm hopeful that they won't take him literally,” Thompson added, referring to Trump’s supporters. “You know, a lot of these people who came to Washington on Jan. 6 came at his invitation, and over time, he weaponized them to attacking the Capitol. And this is that same kind of weaponization — taken to another level."

The concerns arrive just before Trump is scheduled to stage his first 2024 campaign rally on Saturday in Waco, Texas, exactly 30 years after a deadly standoff between federal law enforcement and the Branch Davidians, an apocalyptic cult led by David Koresh, took place just outside the city. The siege ended with a massive fire that engulfed the sect’s compound, left scores of adherents dead and has since become a rallying cry of those who view the government as an abusive force treading on individual liberties. 

Some lawmakers see a connection between Trump’s increasingly violent rhetoric and his choice of Waco to kick-start his campaign. 

"That comment, and being [at] the site of fanatic activity long ago in Texas, is really a dangerous combination,” Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) said Friday in the Capitol. “We saw the harm that it can cause right here in this building. And as usual, it's only about Donald Trump; it's not about the safety and security of families in Texas and around the country.”

On Friday, Trump allies also sought to draw attention to the plight of those arrested and charged for violent assaults on Jan. 6, visiting them in a local D.C. jail and claiming their constitutional rights are being violated.

Trump is facing a series of criminal investigations into his conduct, including his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results and the discovery of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, his resort-residence in South Florida. 

But the Manhattan case is the longest-running, based on a hush money payment to an adult film actress just before the 2016 election, and Bragg has given recent signals that an indictment against Trump might be imminent. 

Trump has acknowledged that he reimbursed Michael Cohen, his former lawyer and fixer, for the $130,000 Cohen initially paid to Stormy Daniels in return for her silence about an alleged affair with Trump a decade earlier — an affair Trump denies. But his defense team has said the payment was made to preserve his marriage, not for purposes related to his political campaign. 

Turning to social media late Thursday, Trump escalated already heated attacks toward Bragg, in one case sharing a pair of side-by-side photos: one of the prosecutor, the other with the former president holding a baseball bat. 

Hours later — just after 1 a.m. on Friday — Trump posted another message to his Truth Social account, warning of a violent backlash if Bragg brings charges. 

“What kind of person can charge another person, in this case a former President of the United States, who got more votes than any sitting President in history, and leading candidate (by far!) for the Republican Party nomination, with a Crime, when it is known by all that NO Crime has been committed, & also known that potential death & destruction in such a false charge could be catastrophic for our Country?” Trump wrote.

“Why & who would do such a thing? Only a degenerate psychopath that truely [sic] hates the USA!”

The message drew immediate denunciations from Trump’s critics, most of them Democrats, who voiced concerns that it would serve as a call to violence for some members of Trump’s conservative base, thousands of whom had stormed the Capitol two years ago at his behest. 

“Trump has succeeded in turning Lincoln’s GOP into a messianic and dangerous cult of personality,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who led Trump’s second impeachment after the Jan. 6 attack. “[He] knows how to activate the most violent and unstable elements of his following. And this kind of rhetoric, this serves as incitement to the most rabid and unhinged parts of his base.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said Friday Trump’s “rhetoric is reckless, reprehensible and irresponsible.”

“It’s dangerous, and if he keeps it up, he’s going to get someone killed,” Jeffries said.

Other Trump critics have gone a step further, suggesting that his comments may have, themselves, violated the law. 

“Threatening a prosecutor is a crime in NY. In fact MULTIPLE crimes,” Norm Eisen, counsel for Democrats in Trump’s first impeachment and an author on both, wrote on Twitter.

Eisen pointed to several statutes in particular, including harassment, menacing and stalking. 

“And that’s just for starters,” he said.  

Across the aisle, Republicans were much less willing to take on the former president, who leads the nascent GOP field vying for the White House in 2024. 

Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) deflected questions about Trump’s “death and destruction” remarks, and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), a close Trump ally, told an NBC reporter that he couldn’t read the comments without his glasses. 

Some others took steps to condemn any talk of violence, though without criticizing Trump directly.

“I don't condone political violence,” said House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.). “I haven't seen those statements,” he continued, “but in general, I've been very outspoken because it relates just to political violence in general.”

Rebecca Beitsch and Mychael Schnell contributed.

Democrats race to Bragg’s defense: Congress ‘should stay the hell out of it’

Posted on (Updated by Mike Lillis

House Democrats are racing to the defense of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D) amid his criminal probe of former President Trump, saying the Republicans seeking to halt Bragg’s hush money investigation are encroaching on matters of independent law enforcement and should simply butt out.

“Let's wait to see if there are going to be charges. Let's see what the charges are. Let's see what the evidence is,” said Rep. Ted Lieu (Calif.), vice chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. “And we should let law enforcement do their jobs without political interference."

Trump stirred a hornet’s nest over the weekend when he predicted he would be indicted this week for his role in a 2016 payment to the adult film actress Stormy Daniels. The prediction proved false — the grand jury in the case is expected to meet again next week — but the very idea drew howls from Trump’s GOP allies on Capitol Hill, where the chairmen of three powerful House committees demanded that Bragg testify before Congress.

“Your actions will erode confidence in the evenhanded application of justice and unalterably interfere in the course of the 2024 presidential election,” Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), James Comer (R-Ky.) and Bryan Steil (R-Wis.) wrote to Bragg on Monday. Jordan chairs the Judiciary Committee; Comer leads the Oversight panel, and Steil heads the Administration Committee.

Bragg responded to the Republicans on Thursday, writing that Trump had created a “false expectation” in predicting his arrest this week. He declined the GOP entreaties to provide information, and Democrats are backing him, accusing Republicans of strong-arming judiciary officials and defending Trump over the rule of law.

"I was astonished, actually, when I saw the letter from the three committee chairs to Mr. Bragg, essentially calling on him to violate grand jury secrecy laws in New York, which of course is a felony,” Rep. Glenn Ivey (D-Md.), a member of the Judiciary Committee, told reporters on Thursday. “He rightly declined to do that.” 

Yet Republicans are not the only figures criticizing Bragg this week. Some liberals are voicing concerns that the Manhattan district attorney is moving too quickly in the hush money case, fearing his indictment might arrive before federal and state prosecutors investigating several other episodes — including Trump’s role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and his effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election — bring potentially more serious charges. 

Those liberal voices say an early indictment in Manhattan could benefit Trump politically, by rallying support from Republican voters who might be shifting away from the former president, but remain sympathetic to his warnings of a national "deep state" conspiracy targeting conservatives by all levels of government. They’re suggesting Bragg should back off to let the other investigations proceed first. 

“A charge like this — a porn star payoff seven years ago, somehow tied to the election but not really — it doesn’t seem like the right way to go,” Van Jones, a liberal commentator for CNN, said this week. “History is not going to judge Donald Trump based on Stormy Daniels. They’re going to judge him based on the election, going to judge him based on the coup attempt.”

Democrats on Capitol Hill have other ideas, however, and many wasted no time blasting the calls for Bragg to delay. 

"I always scratch my head when I hear that — as if we have the ability to politically choreograph the sequencing of criminal justice. I mean, give me a break,” Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) said. 

“The process and the law should just play out, and we should stay the hell out of it.” 

A vast majority of Democrats appear to agree. While many acknowledged there might be a political advantage if the Justice Department brought the first charges surrounding the Jan. 6 attack — or Georgia prosecutors were the first to indict Trump for interfering in the 2020 election — they emphasized that those are independent investigations being conducted by separate agencies, and any coordination between them would taint all of the probes.  

“From a political standpoint, it may have an impact on how this is all interpreted and received, and how certain people are able to spin it,” Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) said, referring to the possibility that Bragg may be the first prosecutor to bring charges. “But the central question is the independence of these prosecutors, and their ability to do their jobs. And they have to do their jobs regardless of the political fallout." 

Bragg’s office has sent recent signals that it may soon indict Trump in the scandal that involved Trump’s former lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen, paying Daniels $130,000 in return for her silence surrounding an alleged affair with Trump a decade earlier. Trump, who denies the affair, later reimbursed Cohen, who was subsequently convicted of a series of felonies, spent time in prison, and is now the central witness against his former boss. 

But it’s still unknown whether or when the grand jury will see fit to indict Trump, what the charges would be or how challenging the path is to a potential conviction.

Legal observers suggest an indictment of Trump would likely focus on charges of falsifying business records, a misdemeanor. Pursuit of a felony would require showing the falsification was connected to another crime, but those options all carry their own pitfalls. 

As the debate has evolved, some powerful Democrats — including Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who led Trump’s first impeachment — have accused the Justice Department of moving too slowly in its investigations. But others said the sheer scope of the Jan. 6 probe is enough to justify the marathon process.

“The good news is the Department of Justice doesn't care about my perception of their pace,” Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) said, pointing to the independence of the agency.

“When you are conducting an investigation that involves the former president of the United States you want to be sure that you have crossed every T and dotted every I. I think it does feel like it's been a long time, but obviously, they're gonna do what is necessary to fully investigate,” he said.

The hush money case also had a head start compared to the other probes, with the conduct first coming to light in 2018 and under investigation by the Manhattan district attorney's office since May of 2021. Some Democrats said it’s been all but inevitable that the Stormy Daniels scandal would yield the first charges. 

"It's almost predictable that the tawdry and the slimy would get him first. And I hate to say it that way, but that's what I think of him,” Rep. Juan Vargas (D-Calif.) told The Hill.

“In many ways, you'd like to see some of the graver violations of law — that I think he's violated — those come first,” he added. “But it's Donald Trump. Of course the circus comes first.”

Mychael Schnell contributed.

Schiff criticizes lagging Justice probe of Trump

Posted on (Updated by Lauren Sforza

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) criticized the Justice Department Thursday for not moving quick enough into its investigation of former President Trump regarding his attempts at overturning the the results of the 2020 election.

"I do share the concern that the Justice Department should have moved on this case — if they are going to move on it — a long time ago," he told CNN's Kaitlan Collins on "CNN This Morning."

"The Justice Department has moved very slowly," he added.

Collins asked the California Democrat whether he shared the same concerns as others who have said the New York grand jury investigation of Trump's involvement in a hush money payment "does not have the same merits" as other cases Trump is facing.

Schiff, who led Trump's first impeachment trials, said that while the Justice Department moved quickly when it came to investigating the rioters who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, the department is at least a year away from investigating Trump's efforts to overturn the election.

"And for that reason, you have other prosecutions now that are going forward first, but I certainly think that the Justice Department should have pursued this with far more urgency," he said.

Schiff said that the investigation into Trump keeping classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida is being met with urgency, but he reiterated that the "most serious" charges around Trump's involvement in Jan. 6 should have been probed by the Justice Department "a long time ago."

Trump is facing a slew of investigations since leaving office. The Manhattan grand jury could possibly indict Trump in the coming days regarding his alleged involvement in a hush money payment made to adult film star Stormy Daniels to cover up an alleged affair.

Trump is also being investigated by the Justice Department after officials found a plethora of classified documents at his private residence in Mar-a-Lago.