Schiff

WASHINGTON — President Trump has harnessed the weight of his office in recent days to accelerate a campaign of retribution against his perceived political enemies and attacks on 1st Amendment protections.

In the last week alone, Trump replaced a U.S. attorney investigating two of his political adversaries with a loyalist and openly directed the attorney general to find charges to file against them.

His Federal Communications Commission chairman hinted at punitive actions against networks whose journalists and comedians run afoul of the president.

Trump filed a $15-billion lawsuit against the New York Times, only to have it thrown out by a judge.

The acting U.S. attorney in Los Angeles asked the Secret Service to investigate a social media post by Gov. Gavin Newsom’s press office.

The Pentagon announced it was imposing new restrictions on reporters who cover the U.S. military.

The White House officially labeled “antifa,” a loose affiliation of far-left extremists, as “domestic terrorists” — a designation with no basis in U.S. law — posing a direct challenge to free speech protections. And it said lawmakers concerned with the legal predicate for strikes on boats in the Caribbean should simply get over it.

An active investigation into the president’s border advisor over an alleged bribery scheme involving a $50,000 payout was quashed by the White House itself.

Trump emphasized his partisan-fueled dislike of his political opponents during a Sunday memorial service for conservative activist Charlie Kirk, who he said “did not hate his opponents.”

“That’s where I disagreed with Charlie,” Trump said. “I hate my opponents and I don’t want the best for them.”

It has been an extraordinary run of attacks using levers of power that have been seen as sacred arbiters of the public trust for decades, scholars and historians say.

The assault is exclusively targeting Democrats, liberal groups and establishment institutions, just as the administration moves to shield its allies.

Erik Siebert, the U.S. attorney in Virginia, resigned Friday after facing pressure from the Trump administration to bring criminal charges against New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James over alleged mortgage fraud. In a social media post later that day, Trump claimed he had “fired” Siebert.

A few hours later, on Saturday, Trump said he nominated White House aide Lindsey Halligan to take over Siebert’s top prosecutorial role in Virginia, saying she was “tough” and “loyal.”

Later that day, Trump demanded in a social media post addressed to “Pam” — in reference to Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi — that she prosecute James, former FBI Director James Comey and Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.).

“We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility,” Trump wrote. “They impeached me twice, and indicted me (5 times!), OVER NOTHING. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!”

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt defended Trump’s remarks, saying Monday that the president is “rightfully frustrated” and that he “wants accountability for these corrupt fraudsters who abuse their power, who abuse their oath of office, to target the former president and then candidate for the highest office in the land.”

“It is not weaponizing the Department of Justice to demand accountability for those who weaponize the Department of Justice, and nobody knows what that looks like more than President Trump,” Leavitt told reporters.

As the president called for prosecution of his political opponents, it was reported that Tom Homan, the White House border advisor, was the subject of an undercover FBI case that was later shut down by Trump administration officials. Homan, according to MSNBC, accepted $50,000 in cash from undercover agents after he indicated to them he could get them government contracts.

At Monday’s news briefing, Leavitt said that Homan did not take the money and that the investigation was “another example of the weaponization of the Biden Department of Justice against one of President Trump’s strongest and most vocal supporters.”

“The White House and the president stand by Tom Homan 100% because he did absolutely nothing wrong,” she said.

Some see the recent actions as an erosion of an expected firewall between the Department of Justice and the White House, as well as a shift in the idea of how criminal investigation should be launched.

“If the Department of Justice and any prosecution entity is functioning properly, then that entity is investigating crimes and not people,” said John Hasnas, a law professor at Georgetown University.

The Trump administration has also begun a military campaign against vessels crossing the Caribbean Sea departing from Venezuela that it says are carrying narcotics and drug traffickers. But the targeted killing of individuals at sea is raising concern among legal scholars that the administration’s operation is extrajudicial, and Democratic lawmakers, including Schiff, have introduced a bill in recent days asserting the ongoing campaign violates the War Powers Resolution.

Political influence has long played a role with federal prosecutors who are political appointees, Hasnas said, but under “the current situation it’s magnified greatly.”

“The interesting thing about the current situation is that the Trump administration is not even trying to hide it,” he said.

Schiff said he sees it as an effort to “try to silence and intimidate.” In July, Trump accused Schiff — who led the first impeachment inquiry into Trump — of committing mortgage fraud, which Schiff has denied.

“What he wants to try to do is not just go after me and Letitia James or Lisa Cook, but rather send a message that anyone who stands up to him on anything, anyone who has the audacity to call out his corruption will be a target, and they will go after you,” Schiff said in an interview Sunday.

Trump campaigned in part on protecting free speech, especially that of conservatives, who he claimed had been broadly censored by the Biden administration and “woke” leftist culture in the U.S. Many of his most ardent supporters — including billionaire Elon Musk and now-Vice President JD Vance — praised Trump as a champion of free speech.

However, since Trump took office, his administration has repeatedly sought to silence his critics, including in the media, and crack down on speech that does not align with his politics.

And in the wake of Kirk’s killing on Sept. 10, those efforts have escalated into an unprecedented attack on free speech and expression, according to constitutional scholars and media experts.

“The administration is showing a stunning ignorance and disregard of the 1st Amendment,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley Law School.

“We are at an unprecedented place in American history in terms of the targeting of free press and the exercise of free speech,” said Ken Paulson, former editor in chief of USA Today and now director of the Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University.

“We’ve had periods in American history like the Red Scare, in which Americans were to turn in neighbors who they thought leaned left, but this is a nonstop, multifaceted, multiplatform attack on all of our free speech rights,” Paulson said. “I’m actually quite stunned at the velocity of this and the boldness of it.”

Bondi recently railed against “hate speech” — which the Supreme Court has previously defended — in an online post, suggesting the Justice Department will investigate those who speak out against conservatives.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr threatened ABC and its parent company, Disney, with repercussions if they did not yank Jimmy Kimmel off the air after Kimmel made comments about Kirk’s alleged killer that Carr found distasteful. ABC swiftly suspended Kimmel’s show, though Disney announced Monday that it would return Tuesday.

The Pentagon, meanwhile, said it will require news organizations to agree not to disclose any information the government has not approved for release and revoke the press credentials of those who publish sensitive material without approval.

Critics of the administration, free speech organizations and even some conservative pundits who have long criticized the “cancel culture” of the progressive left have spoken out against some of those policies. Scholars have too, saying the amalgam of actions by the administration represent a dangerous departure from U.S. law and tradition.

“What unites all of this is how blatantly inconsistent it is with the 1st Amendment,” Chemerinsky said.

Chemerinsky said lower courts have consistently pushed back against the administration’s overreaches when it comes to protected speech, and he expects they will continue to do so.

He also said that, although the Supreme Court has frequently sided with the president in disputes over his policy decisions, it has also consistently defended freedom of speech, and he hopes it will continue to do so if some of the free speech policies above reach the high court.

“If there’s anything this court has said repeatedly, it’s that the government can’t prevent or stop speech based on the viewpoint expressed,” Chemerinsky said.

Paulson said that American media companies must refuse to obey and continue to cover the Trump administration and the Pentagon as aggressively as ever, and that average Americans must recognize the severity of the threat posed by such censorship and speak out against it, no matter their political persuasion.

“This is real — a full-throttle assault on free speech in America,” Paulson said. “And it’s going to be up to the citizenry to do something about it.”

Chemerinsky said defending free speech should be an issue that unites all Americans, not least because political power changes hands.

“It’s understandable that those in power want to silence the speech that they don’t like, but the whole point of the 1st Amendment is to protect speech we don’t like,” he said. “We don’t need the 1st Amendment to protect the speech we like.”

Three days after President Trump publicly accused Sen. Adam Schiff of committing mortgage fraud, an attorney for Schiff wrote privately to the Department of Justice that there was “no factual basis” for the claims — but “ample basis” to launch an investigation into Bill Pulte, the Trump administration official digging into the mortgage records of the president’s most prominent political opponents.

“We are disturbed by the highly irregular, partisan process that led to these baseless accusations; the purposeful, coordinated public disclosure of these materials containing confidential personal information, without regard to the security risks posed to the Senator and his family; and Mr. Pulte’s role in this sordid effort,” attorney Preet Bharara wrote in the July 18 letter reviewed by The Times.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency, where Pulte serves as director, did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday.

A Justice Department spokesperson said Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi has directed Ed Martin — a Trump loyalist and director of the department’s “Weaponization Working Group” — to “commence a probe” into criminal referrals from the housing agency, and Martin “will make public statements regarding the matter when appropriate.”

Trump previously nominated Martin — a Missouri lawyer and conservative activist with no prosecutorial experience — to serve as the U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C. However, Schiff, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, placed a hold on Martin’s nomination, and it was ultimately withdrawn amid a lack of support from Republican senators.

Bharara outlined several reasons why he believed the president’s allegations against Schiff are without merit, and attached a copy of a letter from Schiff to the mortgage lender on his home near Washington, D.C, that Bharara said proved Schiff had been “completely transparent” about listing both that home and a unit in his home district in Burbank as primary residences in mortgage documents.

Schiff’s simultaneous designation of two different homes as primary residences was the basis for Trump’s allegations and for Pulte’s referral of the matter to the Justice Department for criminal review.

Bharara blasted Pulte as “a Presidential appointee who seems to have made it his mission to misuse the power of his office to manufacture allegations of criminal conduct against the President’s perceived political adversaries,” and advised top Justice Department officials to not become complicit in such a politically motivated campaign.

“You should decline Mr. Pulte’s invitation to join his retaliatory harassment of Senator Schiff,” Bharara wrote to Bondi and Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche. “Instead, Mr. Pulte’s misuse of his position should be investigated by a nonpartisan Inspector General to determine whether Mr. Pulte’s conduct should be referred to the Department of Justice for criminal investigation.”

Democrats have questioned the legality of Pulte’s probes into several of Trump’s political opponents, including Schiff, who led a House impeachment of Trump; New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James, who has led investigations into and lawsuits against the president; and Lisa Cook, a Federal Reserve governor who has voted to maintain federal interest rates rather than reduce them as Trump has demanded.

Pulte has lodged different allegations against each, but at their core is the claim that they all misrepresented facts in mortgage documents to secure favorable tax or loan terms, including by listing more than one home as their primary residence at the same time.

Trump cited the claims against Cook as reason to remove her from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, which she is challenging in court. Critics have condemned the move as a partisan attack designed to allow Trump to wrest control of the economy away from the independent Federal Reserve.

Pulte has downplayed or ignored reporting by ProPublica that several of Trump’s own Cabinet members have made similar housing claims in mortgage and other financial paperwork, and reporting by Reuters that Pulte’s father and stepmother have done so as well. Additional Reuters reporting on eight years of court data found that the federal government has only rarely brought criminal charges over misstatements about primary residence in mortgage records.

With Schiff, who is a former prosecutor, Trump alleged that he intentionally misled lenders about his primary residence being in Potomac, Md., rather than in California, in order to “get a cheaper mortgage and rip off America.” Trump cited an investigation by the Fannie Mae “Financial Crimes Division” as his source.

California Sen. Adam Schiff’s lawyer wrote a letter to the Department of Justice saying there was “no factual basis” for President Trump’s accusations that Schiff had committed mortgage fraud.

(Jose Luis Magana / Associated Press)

A memorandum from Fannie Mae investigators to Pulte, previously reported by The Times, noted that investigators had been asked by the Federal Housing Finance Agency inspector general’s office for loan files and “any related investigative or quality control documentation” for Schiff’s homes.

Investigators said they had concluded that Schiff and his wife “engaged in a sustained pattern of possible occupancy misrepresentation” on their home loans between 2009 and 2020 by simultaneously identifying both the Potomac home and the Burbank unit as their primary residence. The investigators didn’t say they had concluded a crime had been committed.

Schiff has publicly dismissed Trump’s allegations as baseless, accusing the president of making mortgage fraud claims “his weapon of choice to attack people standing in his way and people standing up to him, like me.” Bharara’s letter outlined his defense in more detail.

Part of that defense was the letter Bharara said Schiff sent to his lender on his Maryland home, Quicken Loans, a copy of which was provided to the Justice Department and reviewed by The Times.

In that letter, which he sent during a 2010 refinancing, Schiff wrote that while California was his “principal legal residence” and where he paid taxes, he had been informed both by counsel for the lender and for the House Administration Committee that the Maryland home “may be considered a primary residence for insurance underwriting purposes” because members of his family lived in it for most of the year.

Bharara called the letter a “transparent disclosure” and “the antithesis of ‘mortgage misrepresentation.’”

Schiff has previously said that neither of the homes were vacation or investment properties and were classified correctly, both in accordance with how they were used by his family and in consultation with House attorneys and his lenders.

Another part of Schiff’s defense, Bharara wrote, was that even if he had committed fraud by making false statements in his mortgage filings — which Bharara said he did not — the 10-year statute of limitations for charging him has lapsed, as the “most recent mortgage application that Mr. Pulte even accuses of inaccuracy is more than twelve years old.”

Bharara also laid out several reasons why he felt that Pulte’s actions deserve to be investigated.

Bharara asserted that the Federal Housing Finance Agency inspector general appeared to have asked the Fannie Mae Financial Crimes Investigation Unit to delve into Schiff’s mortgage records “at Mr. Pulte’s behest,” and that Pulte personally referred the matter to the Justice Department in May, before the Fannie Mae unit had even provided him with its findings.

He also wrote that the criminal referral was made public “as the President sought to distract from criticism related to [convicted sex offender] Jeffery Epstein.”

Schiff’s address was published as a result, which Bharara said presented a threat to the senator and forced him to take “extra security precautions.” Schiff also has launched a legal defense fund to help him defend himself against the president’s accusations.

Bharara, a former U.S. attorney in New York, described Pulte’s actions as “highly irregular,” and part of a “pattern” of him “misusing his office” to go after Trump’s political opponents.

“Opening an investigation on these deficient facts, after this much time has passed, after such an irregular and suspect process, and when the President has repeatedly expressed his longtime desire to investigate and imprison Senator Schiff, would be a deeply partisan and unjust act, unworthy of the Department of Justice,” Bharara wrote. “Instead, it is Mr. Pulte’s conduct that should be investigated.”

U.S. Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff have sent a letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth requesting a detailed breakdown of military deployments to Los Angeles amid recent immigration enforcement protests in the city.

The two California Democrats wrote Monday that they wanted to know how thousands of National Guard troops and U.S. Marines were specifically used, whether and how they engaged in any law enforcement activity and how much the deployments have cost taxpayers to date.

The deployments were made over the objections of Gov. Gavin Newsom, L.A. Mayor Karen Bass and other local officials, and sparked a lawsuit by the state alleging they were illegal. The letter came just hours before a federal judge agreed with the state in a ruling Tuesday that Padilla and Schiff both cheered.

Padilla and Schiff wrote that the deployments were unnecessary and that greater detail was needed in light of similar operations now being launched or threatened in other American cities.

“The use of the U.S. military to assist in or otherwise support immigration operations remains inappropriate, potentially a violation of the law, and harmful to the relationship between the U.S. public and the U.S. military,” they wrote.

The Department of Defense declined to comment on the letter to The Times, saying it would “respond directly” to Padilla and Schiff.

President Trump ordered the federalization of some 4,100 National Guard troops in California in June, as L.A. protests erupted over his administration’s immigration policies. Some 700 Marines were also deployed to the city. Most of those forces have since departed, but Padilla and Schiff said 300 Guard troops remain activated.

Trump, Hegseth and other administration leaders have previously defended the deployments as necessary to restore law and order in L.A., defend federal buildings and protect federal immigration agents as they conduct immigration raids in local communities opposed to such enforcement efforts.

Under questioning from members of Congress at the start of the deployments in June, Hegseth and other Defense officials estimated that the mission would last 60 days and that basic necessities such as travel, housing and food for the troops would cost about $134 million. However, the administration has not provided updated details as the operation has continued.

Padilla and Schiff asked for specific totals on the number of California Guard troops and Marines deployed to L.A., and details as to which units they were drawn from and whether any out-of-state Guard personnel were brought in. They also asked whether any other military personnel were deployed to L.A., and how many civilian employees from the Department of Defense were assigned to the L.A. operation.

The senators asked for a description of the “specific missions” carried out by the different units deployed to the city, and for a breakdown of military personnel who directly supported Department of Homeland Security teams, which would include ICE agents doing immigration enforcement. They also asked which units were assigned to provide security at federal sites or were “placed on stand-by status outside of the immediate protest or immigration enforcement areas.”

They asked for “the number of times and relevant detail for any cases in which [Defense] personnel made arrests, detained any individuals, otherwise exercised law enforcement authorities, or exercised use of lethal force during the operation.”

They also asked for the total cost of all of the work to the Department of Defense and for a breakdown of costs by operation, maintenance, personnel or other accounts, and asked whether any funding used in the operation was diverted from other programs.

Padilla and Schiff requested that the Department of Defense provide the information by Sept. 12.

Unless it is “expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress,” the use of military personnel for civilian law enforcement on U.S. soil is barred by law under the Posse Comitatus Act. The 1878 law applies to U.S. Marines and to Guard troops who, like those in L.A., have been federalized.

In its lawsuit, California argued the deployments were a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. In response, the Trump administration argued that the president has the legal authority to deploy federal troops to protect federal property and personnel, such as ICE agents.

On Tuesday, a federal judge ruled for the state, finding that the deployments did violate the Posse Comitatus Act. The judge placed his injunction on hold for 10 days, and the Trump administration is expected to appeal.

Schiff said Trump’s “goal was not to ensure safety, but to create a spectacle,” and that the ruling affirmed those actions were “unlawful and unjustified.”

Padilla said the ruling “confirmed what we knew all along: Trump broke the law in his effort to turn service members into his own national police force.”

President Trump on Tuesday accused Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) of committing mortgage fraud by intentionally misleading lenders about his primary residence being in the suburbs of Washington, D.C., rather than California, in order to “get a cheaper mortgage and rip off America.”

Schiff, who led a House impeachment of Trump during the president’s first term and has remained one of his most vocal and forceful political adversaries since joining the Senate, dismissed the president’s claims as a “baseless attempt at political retribution.”

A spokesperson for Schiff said he has always been transparent about owning two homes, in part to be able to raise his children near him in Washington, and has always followed the law — and advice from House counsel — in arranging his mortgages.

In making his claims, Trump cited an investigation by the Fannie Mae “Financial Crimes Division” as his source.

A memorandum reviewed by The Times from Fannie Mae investigators to William J. Pulte, the Trump-appointed director of the U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency, does not accuse Schiff of mortgage fraud. It noted that investigators had been asked by the FHFA inspector general’s office for loan files and “any related investigative or quality control documentation” for Schiff’s homes.

Investigators said they found that Schiff at various points identified both his home in Potomac, Md., and a Burbank unit he also owns as his primary residence. As a result, they concluded that Schiff and his wife, Eve, “engaged in a sustained pattern of possible occupancy misrepresentation” on their home loans between 2009 and 2020.

The investigators did not say they had concluded that a crime had been committed, nor did they mention the word “fraud” in the memo.

The memo was partially redacted to remove Schiff’s addresses and information about his wife. Fannie Mae did not respond to a request for comment.

In addition to denying any wrongdoing, Schiff also suggested that Trump’s accusation was an effort to distract from a growing controversy — important to many in the president’s MAGA base — over the administration’s failure to disclose more investigative records into child sex abuse by the late financier Jeffrey Epstein, a former acquaintance of Trump’s.

There has long been rumors of a “client list” of Epstein’s that could expose other powerful men as predators. Trump promised to release such a list as a candidate, and at one point Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi appeared to say such a list was on her desk. However, the administration has since said no such list exists, and Trump has begged his followers to move on.

Schiff drew a direct line between that controversy and Trump’s accusations against him Tuesday.

“This is just Donald Trump’s latest attempt at political retaliation against his perceived enemies. So it is not a surprise, only how weak this false allegation turns out to be,” Schiff wrote on X. “And much as Trump may hope, this smear will not distract from his Epstein files problem.”

A spokesperson for Schiff echoed the senator’s denial of any wrongdoing.

According to the spokesperson, Schiff made a decision routine for Congress members from states far from Washington to buy a home in Maryland so he could raise his children nearby. He also maintained a home in California, living there when not in Washington.

The spokesperson said all of Schiff’s lenders were aware that he intended to live in both as he traveled back and forth from Washington to his district — making neither a vacation home.

Trump’s own post about Schiff, on his social media platform, was thin on details and heavy on insults, calling Schiff “a scam artist” and “crook.”

Trump alleged that Schiff reported his primary residence being in Maryland, when “he must LIVE in CALIFORNIA” as a congressman from the state.

Schiff, a former federal prosecutor, has for years laid out detailed arguments against the president — and for why his actions violated the law and warranted his permanent removal from office. Those have included Trump’s first presidential campaign’s interactions with Russian assets, his pressuring Ukraine to investigate his rival Joe Biden while U.S. military aid was being withheld from the country, and his incitement of the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection and storming of the U.S. Capitol to prevent the certification of Biden’s 2020 electoral win over him.

Schiff also has criticized the president — and his businesses, family members and political appointees — for their own financial actions.

He recently sponsored legislation that would restrict the ability of politicians and their family members from getting rich off of digital currencies of their own creation, as Trump and his family have done. He also has repeatedly demanded greater financial transparency from various Trump appointees, accusing them of breaking the law by not filing disclosures of their assets within required time frames.

Others have accused Trump for years of financial fraud. Last year, a judge in New York ordered Trump to pay $355 million in penalties in a civil fraud case after finding that the president and others in his business empire inflated his wealth to trick banks and insurers. Trump denied any wrongdoing and has appealed the decision.

All along the way, Trump has attacked Schiff personally, accusing him of peddling hoaxes for political gain and repeatedly suggesting that he should be charged with treason. During a presidential campaign stop in California last year — when Schiff was running for Senate — Trump called Schiff “one of the sleaziest politicians in history.”

Schiff made mention of Trump’s treason claims in his response to the new allegation of mortgage fraud Tuesday, writing, “Since I led his first impeachment, Trump has repeatedly called for me to be arrested for treason. So in a way, I guess this is a bit of a letdown.”

Before leaving office, President Biden preemptively pardoned Schiff and the other members of the committee that investigated Trump’s role in the Jan. 6 insurrection, anticipating that Trump would seek to retaliate against them for their work.

Schiff said at the time that he did not want a pardon. He later dismissed an assertion from Trump that the pardons were “void” as another attempt at intimidation.

Schiff was first elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2000. He now splits his time between a two-story home in Potomac, Md., which he bought in 2003, according to property records, and a one-bedroom condo in a shopping area in downtown Burbank, which he bought in 2009.

In 2023, amid a bruising primary race for his Senate seat, CNN reported on Schiff’s two mortgages, citing experts who said the arrangement did not put Schiff in legal jeopardy — even if it could raise tough political questions.

CNN reported that deed records showed Schiff had designated his Maryland home as his primary residence, including while refinancing his mortgage over the years. In 2020, the outlet reported, Schiff again refinanced his mortgage and indicated that the Maryland home was his second.

CNN also reported that Schiff for years has taken a California homeowner’s tax exemption for his Burbank home, also designating it as his primary address. CNN said that exemption amounted to “roughly $70 in annual savings.” Schiff’s spokesperson confirmed that estimate in annual savings in California, and noted that Schiff did not claim such an exemption in Maryland.

The road to elected office can be long and winding and is not always paved with the best of intentions.

Some politicians — think of the Kennedys, or the Bush family — are born to the trade. Others are borne by tragedy.

Former Santa Barbara Rep. Lois Capps succeeded her husband when he fell dead of a heart attack. Former New York Rep. Carolyn McCarthy was spurred to run when her husband was killed and her son gravely wounded in a mass shooting on the Long Island Rail Road.

Typically, though, the ascension is more methodical, one rung after the next, often with a pinch of right-place, right-time fortune thrown in for good measure.

Lately that bit of luck has visited itself upon Adam B. Schiff, in the form of Russian meddling and a president who hurls tweets like poison thunderbolts.

Schiff is the nine-term Democratic congressman from Southern California, representing parts of Los Angeles and several communities, including Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena, skirting the nearby mountains. Mild in mien and nondescript in appearance, Schiff was perhaps best known, until recently, for prevailing in 2000 in what was then the costliest House race in U.S. history.

(Irresistible fact: Adam’s wife is named Eve.)

Everything changed when Congress launched its probe into Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential campaign. As the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, one of several tasked with the inquiry, Schiff has emerged as a leading voice — calm, measured, deliberate — and one of the most prominent faces of the investigation.

This, naturally, drew the attention and ire of the president and tweeter-in-chief, who singled out the former federal prosecutor for his very own ad hominem insult: “Sleazy Adam Schiff.”

Schiff, who has never been associated with the slightest whiff of scandal, responded in the purse-lipped tone of more sorrow than anger. “With respect Mr. President,” he tweeted in reply, “the problem is how often you watch TV, and that your comments and actions are beneath the dignity of the office.”

“It felt a bit like Bill Murray in ‘Ghostbusters,’” Schiff said days later. “Like I’d just been slimed.”

Politically, this amounts to pure gold.

With well over a dozen members of Congress crowding the Southern California media market and TV stations having close to zero interest in politics, about the only way for a Washington lawmaker to get attention is participating in a high-speed car chase, ideally in prime time with a Kardashian riding shotgun.

It is one reason the area’s congressional lawmakers have a decades-long, unblemished record of futility when it comes to seeking prominent state office.

By contrast, Schiff has become, if not quite a household name, a hero to an important segment of the electorate — namely activist Democrats. He received a rapturous welcome at the state party convention in May as though, in the words of Times political writer Cathleen Decker, the nerd who headed the Calculus Club had just been crowned homecoming king.

“It’s certainly a role I was neither expecting nor particularly wanting,” Schiff said of his newfound political celebrity. “This role is very against type for me. I didn’t have this kind of relationship with the last Republican president and I didn’t expect to have it with a new president.”

There’s just one problem, from an electoral standpoint: At the moment there’s nowhere beyond the House of Representatives for Schiff to go.

He’s shown no interest in joining the crowded 2018 race for governor. And the most logical step, a bid for U.S. Senate, is thwarted unless incumbent Democrat Dianne Feinstein, who is weighing a sixth run next year, unexpectedly decides to stand aside.

Schiff emphatically ruled out a primary challenge. “If she runs for reelection,” he said, he would be “solidly behind her.”

At age 57, Schiff can wait. But if the Senate seat were to suddenly come available, he’d start the race in an enviable spot.

“Every California Democrat’s favorite parlor game is wondering whether Feinstein will seek another term,” said Dan Schnur, a longtime student of state politics who teaches at USC. “If she decides to run again, this is largely an irrelevant discussion. But if she doesn’t, Schiff moves from being an afterthought to potential front-runner.”

He would hardly be a shoo-in. Schiff would face all the hurdles confronting any Southern California member of Congress trying to make the broad leap to the Senate: the mountainous fundraising requirement, the difficulty of launching from a small geographic base and, not least, the built-in bias many Northern Californians have against voting for any politician from (ugh!) the L.A. area.

But if Schiff got elected to the Senate, he may want to tamp down his natural inclination and send flowers or some other token of appreciation to the president. Even though it is hardly his intent, Trump would have done a good deal to make it possible.

[email protected]

@markzbarabak on Twitter

ALSO

Tired of exporting campaign cash, these politicos are putting California first

Who will be the next governor of California? It’s a mystery to these voters

John Dean helped bring down Richard Nixon. Now he thinks Donald Trump is even worse