WATCH: Sen. Schiff Applauds Bipartisan Senate Vote Rejecting Trump’s Venezuelan Oil Grab on MS NOW

Schiff: "…The American people on both sides of the aisle want the president focused on what he promised to do - that was address the cost of living, not engage in more endless warfare over oil."

Washington, D.C. - Last night, U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) joined MS NOW's All In with Chris Hayes to discuss the Senate's critical step in advancing Senators Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Schiff, and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer's (D-N.Y.) resolution to prevent President Trump from using military force against Venezuela without authorization by Congress.

The resolution advanced 52-47, receiving the support of five Republican Senators.

Schiff also raised deep concern over the administration's plans to 'run' Venezuela and profit off its oil industry - emphasizing, "This is about Venezuela's oil. This is about controlling their oil."

View the full interview here.

Key Excerpts:

On the Senate advancing the War Powers Resolution:

[…] The vote was essentially to end any further use of force in Venezuela without an explicit authorization by Congress. So, this will bring to the Senate floor next week a fulsome debate on Venezuela, something we haven't had. Most of the discussions on Venezuela have been behind closed doors. Each of the Senate Committees has refused to bring up a resolution or a hearing or oversight on the subject. Now, we will be able to compel that debate and vote. And having five Republicans join all the Democrats in the Senate in wanting to essentially put the brakes on ownership of Venezuela, on running Venezuela for their foreseeable future, I think that was a very significant vote. And the President of the United States also thought it was a very significant vote and lashed out immediately.

On Trump's reaction to the Senate taking the first step to prevent further military strikes in Venezuela, Trump's foreign policy plans:

[…] This is a significant number of Republicans in the Senate disagreeing with his use of force in Venezuela and threatening to put some constraint on the president's use of the war power, the arrogation to himself over the decision to commit American military forces in circumstances where we are not the subject of an attack, we are not the subject of an imminent invasion, and where it has become clear that what began ostensibly as some campaign against drug running boats really wasn't about drug running at all. If that wasn't obvious from his pardon of the former drug running president of Honduras, it is clear now, as he has continually emphasized, this is about oil. This is about Venezuela's oil. This is about controlling their oil. And if the administration wants to come to Congress to make the case that we should put our servicemembers at risk over access to a foreign country's oil deposits, then let them make that case and seek congressional authorization.

I don't think they're going to get it from Congress. So, this, I think, is a very important signal to the administration. The president knows that he can veto this bill if it were to get through the House. But it is important, I think, to the president, to know that he has the solid backing of his party, and we're seeing some real cracks in that backing when it comes to another regime change, nation building exercise over oil.

[…]

There are real constraints, not only to his mortality, but his morality, as you mentioned. But that is not a sufficient constraint, frankly. We need the Congress to exercise its role. After all, this is a president, among other things, who campaigned on America first, not engaging in more endless wars, paying attention to the home front. And while we have these crises over health care, as reflected in that vote in the House of Representatives today, rising costs of groceries, rising costs of housing, I think the American people on both sides of the aisle want the president focused on what he promised to do - that was address the cost of living, not engage in more endless warfare over oil.

On the administration's strategy to acquire Greenland by paying its citizens:

[…] I don't think it's a good idea. It certainly doesn't sound like part of any America first agenda I can imagine. There are a lot of Americans that would like to have that kind of money. And what's more, this is really spitting in the face of a NATO ally. Should we somehow try to bribe or extort Greenland into some common cause with the United States or let alone use military force, it means really the incredible degradation of NATO, if not the disintegration of NATO. So, there is a lot at stake here in this fixation the president has with Greenland. But no, that money should go to Americans. I don't think we want to be subsidizing Greenlanders to satiate the president and his fixation with Greenland.

###