Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Adam Schiff category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Adam Schiff’ Category

I know it’s hard to believe but Adam Schiff is upset with who attended Thursday’s Gang of 8 meeting on Capitol Hill. Schiff released a statement saying “Emmet Flood’s presence and statement at the outset of both meetings today was completely inappropriate. Although he did not participate in the meetings which followed, as the White House’s attorney handling the Special Counsel’s investigation, his involvement — in any capacity — was entirely improper, and I made this clear to him.”

What’s understated is the fact that Flood made “brief remarks before the meetings started to relay the President’s desire for as much openness as possible under the law.” The White House statement also said “They also conveyed the President’s understanding of the need to protect human intelligence services and the importance of communication between the branches of government.” Schiff confirmed that by saying that Flood “did not participate in the meetings which followed.”

If President Trump’s lawyer didn’t participate in the substantive part of either meeting, what’s the big deal? It isn’t like Flood was handed confidential information by Trey Gowdy or Devin Nunes.

After the meeting, Schiff said, “Today’s Gang of 8 briefing was conducted to ensure protection of sources and methods. Nothing we heard today has changed our view that there is no evidence to support any allegation that the FBI or any intelligence agency placed a spy in the Trump campaign or other wise to failed follow appropriate procedures and protocols.”

That statement’s got a ton of weasel words in it. An informant isn’t the same thing as a spy. Second, Schiff didn’t say that the FBI didn’t use the informant to gather information about the campaign. They don’t have to plant someone inside the campaign to gather lots of information. Third, Schiff left open the possibility that they could’ve used an informant to gather information while following “appropriate procedures and protocols.”

If Democrats cared about the US, we wouldn’t have to deal with Rep. Adam Schiff, (D-Calif.), leaking information about the House Intelligence Committee on a daily basis. If Democrats cared about the US, we wouldn’t have to deal with discredited former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe whining about Jeff Sessions firing him. If Democrats cared about the US, we wouldn’t have to deal with former FBI Director Jim Comey leaking confidential information to a professor.

Last week, Hillary Clinton, the Democrats’ presidential candidate in 2016, criticized the people living in blue collar states, saying “If you look at the map of the United States, there’s all that red in the middle where Trump won. I win the coast, I win, you know, Illinois and Minnesota, places like that. I won the places that represent two-thirds of America’s gross domestic product. So I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward. And his whole campaign, ‘Make America Great Again,’ was looking backwards.”

The point is that presidents are supposed to represent the entire nation.

Trey Gowdy put it best in talking about McCabe:

Here’s that part of the transcript:

WALLACE: Now, Andrew McCabe, the former deputy FBI director who was fired late Friday night says the reason that he was fired was to undercut his credibility as a potential witness in the Mueller investigation. I want to put up some of Andrew McCabe’s statement: This attack on my credibility is one part of a larger effort not just to slander me personally, but to taint the FBI, law enforcement, and intelligence professionals, more generally. It is part of this administration’s ongoing war on the FBI and at the efforts of a special counsel’s investigation, which continue to this day.
Congressman, your response?
GOWDY: Oh, Andy McCabe has undercut his credibility all by himself. He didn’t need any help doing that. And I find it richly ironic that he is lamenting that those are attacking the FBI when he himself does the exact same thing. It was the FBI who said he made an unauthorized disclosure and then lied about it. That wasn’t President Trump. It wasn’t me. It wasn’t a crazy House Republicans. It was his own fell FBI agents that said he leaked and then lied about it. So, if he’s got credibility issues, he needs look no further than himself.

McCabe didn’t tell the truth. President Trump didn’t destroy his credibility. McCabe destroyed his credibility by being a partisan instead of being a law enforcement officer.

I’d love questioning Adam Schiff about what proof he has that the Trump administration gives a rip about the Mueller investigation. Thus far, I haven’t seen anything that’d indicate President Trump has done anything illegal. I’ve heard Rep. Schiff say he’s got proof that President Trump has acted illegally but I haven’t seen the proof. Thus far, the only logical conclusion to draw is that Democrats are using this fishing expedition exclusively for political gain.

I’d love questioning Sen. Manchin or Sen. Heitkamp why they voted against the tax cuts that’ve pushed the US economy into overdrive.

That’s the opposite of patriotism. That’s the definition of partisanship.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , ,

When Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announced the indictments of 13 Russians and “3 Russian entities”, Rosenstein specifically said “There is no allegation in this indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity. There is no allegation in this indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome.”

Somewhere, Adam Schiff is likely crying in his beer.

The indictment itself specifically states that a company called “Internet Research Agency, LLC” was created in 2014, long before the presidential campaign started. Further, the indictment states that the Russians plan was a) sophisticated enough to fool American political activists that the activists thought they were dealing with other like-minded American activists. The Russians’ goal was to sow distrust.

On one day, Nov. 12, 2016, the defendants organized a rally in New York to “show your support for President-elect Donald Trump” while at the same time organizing a “Trump is NOT my president rally” that also was held in New York.

While this indictment doesn’t totally clear the Trump campaign, it’s definitely a defeat for the Democrats, especially Rep. Schiff. Schiff has invested tons of time in front of TV cameras insisting that he’d seen proof that Trump colluded with Russians.

This is the biggest news from the special counsel’s office thus far. Not only does it not accuse the Trump campaign of colluding with Russians, it states that people from Trump’s campaign “unwittingly” participated in the Russians’ plot:

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said the defendants created hundreds of accounts using fake personas on the social media platforms Facebook, Twitter and Instagram to advance their scheme. One example of that was the Twitter account “Tennessee GOP,” which used the handle @TEN_GOP,” and “which falsely claimed to be controlled by a U.S. state political party,” the indictment said. “Over time, the @TEN_GOP account attracted more than 100,000 online followers.”

The defendants also allegedly used a “computer infrastructure, based partly in the United States, to hide the Russian origin of their activities and to avoid detection” by US authorities, the indictment said.

It isn’t a stretch to think that this plot achieved its goal, which was to create distrust in our election.

What’s sad is that the MSM is totally content with sowing additional distrust with their ‘reporting’.

I won’t pretend to be a lawyer. I didn’t even go to law school. I certainly have never stood before a judge in a FISA court. That isn’t needed for this article, though. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that a man applying for a FISA warrant when the chief ‘witness’ is a political operative who’s spent months digging up dirt on a presidential candidate.

That’s what Jim Comey did. Now he’s pretending like he’s the man integrity. He’s a warped individual. Unfortunately, he isn’t a man of integrity anymore. I remember when he tweeted “All should appreciate the FBI speaking up. I wish more of our leaders would. But take heart: American history shows that, in the long run, weasels and liars never hold the field, so long as good people stand up. Not a lot of schools or streets named for Joe McCarthy.” Here’s a question for Comey that also applies to Adam Schiff: how many schools and streets are named for FBI directors that withhold relevant witness information from a FISA court?

Jonathan Turley put things in perspective when he said this:

Let’s put this one in perspective. The memo concerns allegations that Comey signed off on multiple secret court applications to put a Trump aide under surveillance. It appears that Comey and his staff never told the court that the infamous “dossier” by Fusion GPS was paid for in significant part by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. It was never revealed that the author of the dossier had told the FBI that he was “desperate” to prevent Trump from being president or that he had shopped the story with various reporters, who could not verify its contents.

Does Comey think that information is irrelevant? Does Mr. Schiff think that’s irrelevant? If they think that, then that’s proof that neither man has the integrity required for the job they currently hold or that they once held.


As I said in my opening, I’m not a lawyer. I’m willing, though, to say that Comey’s omissions are worthy of investigation.

Adam Schiff’s op-ed ignores lots of facts. That isn’t surprising. It’s just disappointing. For instance, Rep. Schiff said “In the run-up to the release of a deliberately misleading memo, some Republicans hyped the underlying scandal as ‘worse than Watergate.’ When it was published, however, it delivered none of the salacious evidence of systemic abuse that it promised—only a cherry-picking of information from a single FISA court application.”

Is Rep. Schiff suggesting that it isn’t a big deal that the FBI didn’t disclose the fact that the basis for their surveillance warrant was a piece of opposition research? Does Rep. Schiff think it’s ok for political campaigns to use government to spy on their opponent? Or is he ok with that only when Democrats use the FBI to spy on Republican campaigns?

As for the cherry-picking chanting point, I wish Rep. Schiff would drop it. What context is needed after Andrew McCabe testified to Congress that, without the fake Trump ‘dossier’, the FBI wouldn’t have even attempted to get a surveillance warrant on Carter Page?

Mr. Schiff can’t get his facts straight. For instance, he also wrote “The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court was established in 1978 to supervise and provide an additional check on highly-classified counterintelligence surveillance processes. The norms and institutions protecting the Department of Justice from political interference in the years since have been tested, but never before as they are under President Donald Trump.”

Actually, the Obama administration used an opposition research document paid for by the Clinton campaign and the DNC. It was the Obama FBI that applied for the surveillance warrant to spy on the Trump campaign. What part of that sounds legitimate? Here’s a hint: there isn’t a part of that that sounds legitimate.

Weaponizing government, then using it against a political opponent, aka the Trump campaign, is about as corrupt as it gets. Rep. Schiff isn’t an honest man. In this interview, he can’t resist spinning about Russian collusion:

Early in the interview, Schiff said “Even this very flawed memo demonstrates what the origin of this investigation was and that origin involved collusion.” Here’s the definition of collusion:

a secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally.

Rep. Schiff, what specific part of the US Statutes did the Trump campaign violate? Mr. Schiff, a lengthy explanation will prove that you aren’t being honest. A succinct answer is what’s needed. If you can’t cite the specific statute that Trump violated, then I’ll state that you’re a windbag who is up to political mischief. I’ll state that you aren’t worthy of my attention or anyone else’s.

Jim Comey’s tweet last night was the tweet of a bitter man. In Comey’s tweet, he said “All should appreciate the FBI speaking up. I wish more of our leaders would. But take heart: American history shows that, in the long run, weasels and liars never hold the field, so long as good people stand up. Not a lot of schools or streets named for Joe McCarthy.”

I suspect that there won’t be any schools or streets named after Jim Comey, either.

Apparently, Mr. Comey isn’t happy that President Trump has decided to release the House Intelligence Committee summarization memo written mostly by Chairman Devin Nunes. According to the article, the “memo purportedly is critical of the FBI’s use of surveillance during the 2016 presidential campaign, particularly in the initial stages of its investigation into alleged collusion between Russia and Trump’s campaign.” As usual, Fox News’s Catherine Herridge broke the story. Here’s Comey’s tweet:


The most no-nonsense member of Congress, Trey Gowdy, said that the memo will be embarrassing to Adam Schiff:

James Freeman’s article does something that MSNBC and CNN haven’t done. Specifically, Mr. Freeman questioned the integrity of Mr. Schiff’s alleged information. I use the word alleged advisedly. Frequently, Mr. Schiff has hinted that he’s seen information that proves that there’s been collusion between President Trump’s team and Russia. Never has he provided that proof.

Appearing on Meet the Press Daily, Schiff “was asked by Chuck Todd” “whether or not he only has a circumstantial case.” Schiff replied “Actually no, Chuck. I can tell you that the case is more than that and I can’t go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now.”

Freeman later notes that “nearly nine months later, he’s still going on talk shows and making accusations. He’s still declining to back them up. And he’s still finding friendly news organizations to broadcast his claims, even though by this time a fact-free Schiff accusation of collusion with Russians can hardly be considered news.” When Jake Tapper asked for evidence, Schiff dodged until Tapper asked him point blank:

TAPPER: Do you know of any instance where the Russians said, we’re going to do it this way, we’re going to do it through WikiLeaks, we’re going to do it through DCLeaks, this is how we’re going to get this information out there?
SCHIFF: I can’t comment. That’s an issue that we have been investigating. And I don’t want to comment at this point or not what the state of that evidence is.

That’s tough. Schiff’s credibility is sinking fast. We should nickname him ‘The Gossip Guy’ because he’s more full of gossip than actual verifiable information. Honestly, I don’t trust Schiff. It’s put-up-or-shut-up time as far as I’m concerned. This article explains why I don’t trust him.