[0:03]Hi everybody, my name is Britney Lewis, a breaking news reporter here at Forbes. Joining me once again is Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Congresswoman, thank you so much for joining me. >> Thanks for having me as always, Britney.
[0:14]Always great to talk to you. >> It is always great to speak with you. Per usual, we have another wide-ranging conversation and I want to dive right in and start with DHS funding because the deadline to fund the Department of
[0:26]Homeland Security is Friday. Democrats have a list of demands to reform DHS and Rain in ICE. These include putting guard rails in place to ensure immigration enforcement is targeted, banning ICE
[0:36]agents from wearing masks, and implementing a use of force policy, amongst others. So, where are negotiations right now? >> Well, my understanding is that
[0:47]negotiations are really not going anywhere. Um and and the reason seems to be that Republicans refuse to join with Democrats to put reasonable restrictions
[0:59]in place. We have to, as you said, put guard rails around ISIS's actions in terms of how they enforce the law when they are pursuing undocumented
[1:10]immigrants. Uh, I mean, you can't have a law, essentially a law enforcement agency using battering rams to without a court order, you know, bang down
[1:21]people's doors, you know, go through people's homes, um, seizures without warrants, uh, arresting American citizens and and detaining them. Um,
[1:32]targeting and profiling people because of the color of their skin or the language that they're speaking. I mean, ICS is out of control. I I want to be
[1:41]clear. I am for deporting the worst of the worst criminals, which President Trump said was going to be his priority.
[1:49]And DHS's own numbers, Britney, show that only 14% of those undocumented immigrants that they've detained have a criminal record. I mean, the
[2:00]overwhelming majority of people that they have rounded up and put through deportation proceedings have not committed a crime. and were simply here because they were trying to make a way better way of life for themselves and
[2:12]their families or they were people who actually were going through an asylum pro a lawful process and technically not here illegally. So we we have to rein
[2:23]them in. We have to put some guard rails around them and their activity and how they make enforcements and people Americans need to be able to protest
[2:33]their actions and not worry about getting killed in the process. Especially when we saw last month two people shot
[2:43]dead by federal agents in Minnesota. We've seen these immigration enforcement operations in Minnesota and around the country. And even Republicans who are supportive of President Trump's
[2:54]immigration policies. There's polling that suggests the majority of Americans, they don't like what they're seeing here. They think it's too aggressive. They think ISIS tactics are too aggressive. So, what points of
[3:05]contention are there when it comes to this list of 10 demands that Republicans aren't on board with? Because, as I said, polling suggests that people think that ICE does need to be reigned in.
[3:15]>> That's right. I mean, particularly because we have uh a real significant majority of Americans who believe that there needs to be enforcement. Uh but at
[3:27]the same time, we need to make sure that we're not um being abu we don't have ICE being abusive and violating people's rights in the process um or profiling.
[3:36]Um my answer to your question about how far along they are or you know what points of contention are there um is difficult to answer because the White
[3:47]House's response to Democrats proposal has been very vague. uh they have not come back with a serious proposal from what I understand that includes agreeing to any any of what's on our list and
[3:59]look people have the right to know who it is that is uh is is accusing them in this country that's why masks need to come off ID needs to come on camera the
[4:09]ICE agents need to wear and CBP agents need to wear body cameras because documentation is critical and people need to make sure need to know that if
[4:20]they are being deted detained or or arrested, but there was a warrant that was signed by a judge. So, because you you have the right to face your accuser and the the government has to get have
[4:30]probable cause to detain you in this country and even for someone who is accused of being an undocumented immigrant. Um, that applies for that to them as well.
[4:40]>> Senate Majority Leader John Thun, he is an advocate for another continuing resolution. And I want to read you something that he said on the Senate floor today. Do I think the parties are on a path that could culminate in a
[4:51]deal? Yes. Will they need more time to get there? Absolutely. So, I hope our Democrat friends will remain at the table and give talks more time to mature. Do you think that another
[5:01]continuing resolution is the way to go? Or do you think there's going to be a partial government shutdown come Friday? >> Well, I'm concerned that there is going to be a partial government shutdown come
[5:12]Friday because Republicans haven't come to the table with a serious response to our proposals. Uh, I haven't heard anything. I I look, I I I think Senator
[5:21]Thun, Leader Thun, is a honorable and decent man, and I think that he is actually interested in trying to help us make some progress towards those goals. But it's hard to see how Democrats would
[5:32]vote for a continuing resolution. Um, if there's been absolutely no progress and there aren't any serious offers for
[5:41]compromise on the table, um, I if there are, then absolutely we should have a CR. give us a little more time and make sure that we can move forward together.
[5:51]But, you know, to just keep kicking the can down the road um where we don't have serious serious offers going back and forth doesn't doesn't make make a lot of
[6:01]sense and the pressure uh needs to be applied uh if they're not going to do that. I do not want to make a complete left turn here and talk about Jeffrey and
[6:12]talk about Jeffrey Epstein and what we've seen come out of the files there because last month the Department of Justice released over 3 million more materials related to the disgraced
[6:22]finance year. This was well past the December 19th date that the Epstein Files Transparency Act gave to the DOJ to release all the documents related to Epstein. But Deputy Attorney General
[6:32]Todd Blanch said the review is over. there's not going to be any more materials released. So, is that it? I mean, what do you make of this? Obviously, we still have to look at all
[6:42]of the millions of documents that are coming out, but what do you make of the investigation so far? >> The the investigation and the lack of
[6:52]compliance with federal law on the part of the Trump administration is an abomination. I mean, there are still 3 million more files that they haven't released. So, they are not compliant
[7:02]with the law. the file much of the files that they recently released actually have the names of the perpetrators redacted redacted and the victim's names
[7:13]were revealed. I mean that was one of the one things that they were absolutely supposed to protect was the names of the victims and they've also said that they there aren't going to be any prosecutions.
[7:24]I mean are you kidding me? I mean, so the the reason that we needed to have these files revealed is so that DOJ could engage investigations
[7:35]uh against people who raped and assa and sexually assaulted and abused young girls who were underage. I mean, who who
[7:46]engaged in in pedophilic acts. And I mean, they're just going to get off scot-free. The Trump administration is just going to let them let them go. um to say nothing of the fact that we need
[7:57]to get to the bottom of the president's involvement. He's mentioned the most number of times in these documents. I'll be going down to DOJ to uh to look at the files that the unredacted files, but
[8:09]Britney, they're only making four computers available for the entire Congress to be able to look at those unredacted files. That is not normally the kind the the kind the the kind of
[8:19]narrow access that we have. We usually have for as large a body as we are a lot more access that is a lot less restrictive and that's because they don't want us to see what's really in there.
[8:31]>> What specifically are you looking for when it comes to those unredacted files? I mean, how easy or hard would it be to go through all of them? Because the documents, I mean, there's millions of documents,
[8:41]>> right? My understanding is they've made it very difficult, not just because they only have four computers for us to review them on, but also the the there
[8:51]are codes and specifics that we have to ask for. So, you have to know what to ask for, which is not the kind of access unfettered access that we would normally have when it comes to classified
[9:02]documents, which these aren't these aren't actually classified. These are just documents that they want to shield as much as possible so that we can't get to the to the real bottom to be able of
[9:13]of this case to ensure that the victims ultimately get justice. That's why we need to pass my Courtney Wild Act [clears throat] legislation that would
[9:22]ensure that we change the law that would have that would prohibit these kind of sweetheart deals that Jeffrey Epstein got instead of being prosecuted as a
[9:32]felon under federal law. and that you allow the victims to have their day in court and be able to weigh in and be notified about this the the proposed uh
[9:43]the proposed plea deal so that they could weigh in when the sentencing occurred. And we have to pass that law because this should never be able to happen to any victim again.
[9:53]In a congressional hearing today, Attorney General Pam Bondi was testifying and your colleague Jamie Rascin said to her face, "You're running a massive Epstein cover up right out of
[10:04]the DOJ." Do you agree with that? Do you think that the DOJ is running this cover up when it comes to Jeffrey Epstein? >> I absolutely do. Pam Bondi has done been
[10:15]nothing but a the the the the chief protection uh the the the chief of protection of Donald Trump and his
[10:25]cronies that cuddled up and buddied up with Jeffrey Epstein for years. And I I mean the the the spectacle, the disrespect that she brought on herself
[10:37]and on the Department of Justice in today and with her performance in judiciary was disgusting. And I I mean it made it made a spectacle of what
[10:49]should be a normal back and forth engagement of questions asked by members of Congress to hold the executive branch accountable. And you know, I mean, she
[10:59]thinks she's this big badass coming to, you know, stand up to members of Congress and call them names and, you know, avoid answering questions and
[11:09]being very combative. Um, she made herself look like the clown that she is. >> We're seeing the Clintons, former President Bill Clinton, and the former
[11:20]Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testify in front of the House Oversight Committee later this month. This will be a closed door testimony. The Clintons want a public testimony. What do you
[11:30]make of this? And what information do you want to um be figured out here? I I was on the oversight committee for four years, Britney, and you know, I
[11:40]it's it's unbelievable to me that um when you have an opportunity to hear from witnesses that you've been pushing to be able to hear from, as the Republicans have in this case, and
[11:51]they're offering to testify publicly, I mean, that's exactly what you should fully embrace and be able to have the opportunity to ask questions. Sunlight
[12:01]is the best disinfectant. if Republicans are that concerned about Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton's um involvement in in in these in this case, which you know
[12:11]uh why they are the focus as opposed to all of the other uh perpetrators that are in those files is is obvious because this is political and not uh genuine for
[12:22]them. But the fact that they are refusing to allow public testimony when that is what is going to be able to bring about the result that we want uh
[12:32]which is to make sure that we can understand what what happened from the through talk through with them their experiences and help ensure at the end
[12:41]of the day that the victims get justice. >> At the end of the day this is all about the victims and what we're talking about I mean is really just skin crawling. It
[12:51]should be absolutely. We're talking about a global sex trafficking network that does involve minors. I mean, it's really just disgusting. But when you think about
[13:01]>> what we're talking about now and how this could get political, this could become a public thing, do you think that a televised hearing is the best way to
[13:12]sus out the truth than a closed door testimony? Are you afraid of this turning into a circus? >> I'm not. I mean, Hillary Clinton w testified
[13:22]uh on [snorts] the Benghazi investigation and spent 11 hours answering questions in public. It provided clarity and understanding and
[13:34]it showed the country uh what was really going on and that the accusations that Republicans had made were absolutely not on target. And Hillary Clinton was able
[13:44]to correct the record and answer questions very specifically and expertly. And that's what the Republicans are afraid of. They what they want to do is they want to have a
[13:54]behind closed doors recorded deposition where they can release snippets of what would make them look their argument look better politically and they so they can
[14:06]smear the Clintons instead of having a public hearing where questions are answered in the sunlight and then the American people can see for themselves and make judgments for themselves. But that's not what they want. That's that's
[14:17]not what this is about. This is about trying to cover up, you know, the the crimes and what other what other uh perpetrators did and single out the
[14:27]Clintons because this is just a continuation of the absolute politicization of of this of this case and their desire to protect perpetrators
[14:39]uh from the president to many other billionaires that have been revealed to be in those files and that had a close relationship with Jeffrey Epste. where the questions need to be answered.
[14:50]What were they doing with him? And uh and in what way did did they participate, if at all, with uh with abusing those girls? >> There were though embarrassing photos of
[15:01]former President Bill Clinton in those files. Do you think he needs to he needs to answer those same questions? >> I I mean, he's he's said that he wants
[15:11]to come and testify in public. I I mean, if the Republicans were really concerned about, you know, having them answer any questions, then let's have it all out in in in the sunlight. This for that this
[15:22]part of this this this situation is really all designed to distract from the fact that they have violated the law. They have not released all the files. They are trying to be bring this matter
[15:33]to a close by refusing. They've all they are saying Todd Blanch said that there will be no investigations, no prosecu no additional prosecutions. The only prosecution that took place under the
[15:44]Biden administration that got a conviction, the only [clears throat] prosecution that took place was Gain Maxwell, who now we we realize uh might
[15:53]get a a pardon if she agrees to clear Donald Trump's name, which you can't believe anything that she might say because she obviously has personal interest in saying whatever needs to be
[16:04]said. But at the end of the day, right now in terms of our focus, our focus needs to be on getting justice for those victims, forcing the administration to
[16:14]comply with the law and release all the files, giving Congress access to those files unfettered and with ease so that we can really get the information needed
[16:24]to answer to answer questions. And we need to focus on affordability because the everyday life of Americans has become unaffordable. The new Democrats
[16:35]in Congress today released our affordability agenda that focuses on, you know, lowering utility bills and groceries and home costs and health care
[16:44]costs. And that is what we should all be rowing in the same direction on. And instead, the Republicans engage in obstruction in, you know, preventing justice for these victims and in trying
[16:55]to politicize a case that we really all should be coming together to prevent from ever hap having happened again. And when you do see those unredacted files, I would love for you to speak
[17:06]with us about them because I do think the American people need to know >> for whatever Yeah, of course. For whatever you could you would be allowed to do and but I do want to just ask you a few questions. One more topic, the
[17:18]Save Act because the House is expected to vote on it soon. This legislation would require proof of US citizenship to register to vote. It would also require voters to show photo ID when voting. What are your thoughts on the
[17:29]legislation? I'm I'm opposed to this legislation. It's out and in in in nearly all states, photo IDs are already required. What this legislation does is it basically
[17:40]makes you prove citizenship through your birth certificate or a passport. The majority of Americans don't have a passport. And c can you I'm not sure if
[17:52]you know where your birth certificate is. I happen to know where mine is because I got it many years ago and it's in our safe. But Britney, what the bill requires is that this disproportionately
[18:02]hurts women and would suppress women and seniors and minorities ability to vote because it says that your birth certificate has to match your current
[18:14]ID. Well, I was born as Debbie Deborah Wasserman and today my name is Deborah Wasserman Schultz. My my names don't
[18:24]align. I'm obviously a citizen and I I I it is incomprehensible to me that in order to be able to vote, I would have
[18:32]to provide proof that my current name uh is matches up with the name on my birth certificate. That that is something that is purely designed as voter suppression.
[18:42]And on top of that, Republicans have now added a provision in the SAVE Act that would have DH every single elections office be required to turn over voter
[18:53]information to the Department of Homeland Security. There is absolutely no reason for the the Homeland Security to have the voter roles of everyone in America. Uh the only reason that they
[19:04]would need that they would have that is so that so that they can more easily go after Americans and harass them. And that's unacceptable. It's another voter suppression tactic. And you know, this
[19:14]the Save Act is not it's designed to solve a a to provide a solution in search of a problem. The amount of
[19:24]non-citizens voting is, you know, is infinitely small and there's no reason to have legislation to prevent non-citizens from voting because they essentially don't vote.
[19:35]>> I want to get your take though on some poll numbers. A Pew Research poll last year found that the vast majority of Americans are for showing voter ID at
[19:45]the polls. 83%. The survey showed >> I'm in New York and I don't show my ID to go to the poll, but I am an AMC
[19:55]StubHubs member and I do show my ID every time I want to use that. Why do you think it's more difficult to go to the movies and I'm a member than vote in some states? >> Well, you don't have to prove you're a
[20:06]citizen to go to the movies, Britney. I mean, this bill requires >> No, I'm I'm talking about the part where every voter has to show. >> Do you think you should have to have your birth certificate match the same
[20:17]name on your current ID? Because that's what the Save Act requires. Do you think that the voter roles should all be turned over across the country to the Department of Homeland Security? Because that's what this bill requires. This
[20:28]bill makes it intentionally harder for women, seniors, and minorities to vote. Like I said, the majority of Americans do not have a passport. If they had to go get their birth certificate instead,
[20:40]that actually amounts to a pole tax because you have to pay a fee to have a birth certificate or a passport. And I mean, we don't charge people in this
[20:50]country to to cast their ballot. And so making sure that people if they're going to have to have an ID uh can have an ID that doesn't require them to pay money
[21:02]and that doesn't require them to jump through unreasonable hoops that are essentially impossible. I mean should I have to change my name? I've already been through a name change uh a legal
[21:12]name change because of other challenges that I faced in my married name and my maiden name so that I could align all my documents. So now on top of that I have to go change my birth certificate. Uh,
[21:23]why shouldn't my birth certificate be able to remain the name that I was born with? I mean, this is nothing more than a voter suppression tactic to make it harder for people that Republicans know will be more likely to go to the polls
[21:34]and vote for Democrats and make it harder for them to vote. That's all this is about. >> But when it comes to the voter ID component, most Democrats, the majority of Americans are for this. Do you think
[21:46]that this is an issue? >> You're not making the distinction. You're not making the distinction that I keep trying to to impress upon you. No, I hear I hear your distinction. >> Most Americans prefer a voter ID. They are not
[21:57]>> I proving you're a citizen. >> I hear your distinction on the birth certificate, but I'm asking about the voter ID component of this. I mean, do you think when it comes to the voter ID component of the Save Act, do you think
[22:08]Democratic lawmakers are out of step here? >> No, because we tried to get them to make changes to this legislation so that we could support the bill. So that you did
[22:18]have a reasonable uh a reasonable requirement for presenting a voter ID that wasn't really designed as an obstacle to prevent people from being
[22:28]able to vote. So if it wasn't if there wasn't a provision that made it harder for women to vote because most married most married women change their names, add their husband's name or change their
[22:39]name to their husband's name and or their partner's name. um and they don't change their p birth certificate, if they don't have a passport, then they're they're out of luck. They won't be able
[22:49]to vote under this law. And because they passed this now owner this ownorous provision uh that added an ownorous provision to turn all the voter roles over to the Department of Homeland
[23:00]Security, that is an unacceptable unreasonable action that that is completely unrelated to whether or not people should provote provide voter ID
[23:10]when they go to the polls. This is a solution in search of a problem that creates more problems. The there are barely any non-citizens who vote. This
[23:20]is not something that is happen happening not only in in a rampant way but even even that registers beyond you know tenth of
[23:31]a percent. So this is absolutely unnecessary and it's unnecessary because in most places people will show their ID uh and are required to. This requires
[23:41]proving your citizenship which is a solution in search of a problem that will make it harder for people to vote who legitimately have the ability to already. >> Well, I appreciate you joining me per
[23:51]usual. Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, thank you for the time. >> Always a pleasure. Thanks, Britney. Good to talk to you.