Search
Archives

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

Categories

Archive for the ‘Adam Schiff’ Category

There’s no polite way of saying this so I won’t try. Tucker Carlson’s newfound notoriety has exposed his stupidity. His latest bout with stupidity came Friday night when he accused John Bolton of being a “bureaucratic tapeworm” who is pushing President Trump into war with Iran.

In his opening monologue, Carlson played “a clip of Trump explaining his rationale, that killing upwards of 150 people would not have been a ‘proportionate’ response to the fact that Iran took down an unmanned drone, Carlson lamented that this ‘most basic of all questions’ is ‘too rarely asked by our leaders contemplating war.'”

Carlson’s instinct is to believe that any use of the US military will automatically lead to full-scale war. That type of thinking isn’t just stupid. It’s dangerous. First, there never was a plan to introduce ground troops into this fiasco. Next, there still is a need to send a message to Iran, NoKo, Russia and China that the Trump administration isn’t dovish like the Obama administration.

If Carlson thinks that killing 150 IRGC troops is too hawkish, then he’s as dovish as a Democrat. Should the US do nothing while Iran blows up oil tankers and shoots down US drones? We took that approach starting in 1979. When 9/11 happened, someone told Mayor Giuliani that al-Qa’ida had declared war on the US. Mayor Giuliani’s reply was that Iran had been at war with us since 1979 but that we weren’t at war with them.

President Clinton’s ‘strategy’ of appeasement, history shows, is what led Osama bin Laden to conclude that the US was a paper tiger:

After leaving Afghanistan they headed for Somalia and prepared for a long battle, thinking that the Americans were like the Russians. They were surprised when the Americans entered with 300,000 troops, and collected other troops from around the world-5,000 from Pakistan, 5,000 from India, 5,000 from Bangladesh, 5,000 from Egypt, Senegal, and others like Saudi Arabia. The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized more than before that the America soldiers are paper tigers. After a few blows, the Americans ran away in defeat.

I’m not implying that Carlson is a coward. I’m stating that he’s an idiot. If he thinks that we should avoid war at all costs, which is what he’s said for the better part of a year, then we can’t let people like Tucker influence foreign policy.

Though the strike would have been “disproportionate,” the “entire point,” Tucker opined, was to lead to a “wider conflict” because “policy makers in Washington crave a war with Iran.”

There’s no proof that supports Tucker’s opinion but, in his mind, it’s Gospel fact. Just like when I ridicule other liberals about their wild accusations, I’d ask Carlson what his proof is for his wild accusations.

If I won’t let John Brennan, Adam Schiff or Jerry Nadler escape without providing proof for their wild accusations, why should I let Carlson off the hook without proof for his wild accusations?

Does Carlson understand the difference between full-scale war and a one-time military strike? He should. I’m just not certain he knows. It’s frightening to hear Carlson accuse the US of escalating the situation in Iran. The only other idiot who’d think that would be Dennis Kucinich. The US asked Japanese PM Abe to travel to Iran to offer the Iranians the opportunity to talk peace with President Trump.

Iran’s response was to blow up a Japanese oil freighter while the Japanese PM was in Iran. So much for the theory that the US escalated this tense situation to the brink of war. So much for Carlson’s credibility. Carlson is a low-talent provocateur. He isn’t the intellectual he pretends to be.

At this point, it’s impossible to conclude that former Nixon White House Counsel John Dean likes Republicans. He’s made a living since a) getting disbarred for obstructing justice and b) pleading guilty for obstructing justice by writing books insisting that one scandal or another was “worse than Watergate.” This week, he was back on Capitol Hill with his dog and pony show (my apologies to dogs and ponies) to verify for Democrats that Russiagate (wait for it) is “worse than Watergate.”

I don’t have a problem with Dean making a living by serving up this BS. It’s his right, thanks to the First Amendment. What I have a problem with is Democrats pretending that he’s got any credibility left. Dean’s credibility died when he pled guilty of obstructing justice. If it didn’t die then, it likely died when he insisted that Iran-Contra (sorry to younger readers; if you don’t know what that is, google it) was — wait for it — worse than Watergate.

Rep. John Ratcliffe did a masterful job utterly demolishing Monday’s hearing:

Ouch! If that didn’t utterly demolish Dean’s credibility and Nadler’s credentials, then perhaps Brit Hume’s comments will:

On Fox News Monday night, Brit Hume said it was “amazing” that House Democrats had Dean testify, adding, “Who is going to be next for the House impeachment horde? [Deceased mobster] Whitey Bulger, perhaps?”

Actually, to add context to Brit’s commentary, he said that the first star witness the House Judiciary Committee Democrats called was Michael Cohen and that the next star witness the House Judiciary Committee Democrats called was John Dean. It should be noted that Dean pled guilty for obstructing justice during the Watergate cover-up, which he masterminded. Furthermore, Cohen is in prison after pleading guilty to the charge of lying to Congress.

That’s when Brit Hume said “Who is going to be next for the House impeachment horde? [Deceased mobster] Whitey Bulger, perhaps?” Either that or Democrats might host a séance to call on the ghost of Richard Nixon to testify that Russiagate is “worse than Watergate.”

To get serious, though, what’s happening in the Democrat majority in the House is a clown show. (Again, my apologies to clown shows.) It’s a spectacle. The Democrats start the week with the Dean clown show. Over the weekend, the Democrat Speaker of the House said she didn’t want Trump impeached. She wanted him thrown in prison. She said that without mentioning if President Trump had committed a crime. Then yesterday, Adam Schiff insisted that the discredited Steele gossip column otherwise referred to as the Steele Dossier was Gospel truth.

Democrats running these ‘investigations’ are making fools of themselves. Democrats passing bills in the House are passing things that aren’t popular with the American people and that don’t fix important problems. To summarize, Democrats are too focused on dead-end investigations and they’ve passed legislation that would take us back to the pathetic Obama-Biden economy.

Frankly, Democrats deserve to get stuck with John Dean. CNN does, too. May they rot in hell together.

Let’s just be blunt about something. Adam Schiff is the Democrats’ political hack if choice. He’s been exposed as this generation’s Lanny Davis. (That isn’t a compliment.) This morning, Schiff called to order a hearing of the House Intelligence Committee. I’d call that hearing room a virtually intelligence-free zone but that’s obvious of any room with Schiff in it.

This article highlights how Devin Nunes blew Schiff’s smears to smithereens. This isn’t that difficult since Schiff’s premise was discredited months ago. Schiff is the partisan who just … can’t … let … go … of Russian collusion. They’ll have to pry Russiagate from his cold, dead fingers. He’s that desperate for a place in history. (The only thing that history books will remember about Schiff is that he’s the Democrats’ favorite partisan hack.)

Meanwhile, Nunes took Schiff apart. Here’s what Nunes said:

One would think the Democrats would simply apologize and get back to lawmaking and oversight but it’s clear they couldn’t stop this grotesque spectacle even if they wanted to. After years of false accusations and McCarthyite smears, the collusion hoax now defines the Democratic Party. The hoax is what they have in place of a governing philosophy or a constructive vision for our country.

Right after Democrats launched their first laughable investigation, Democrats insisted that they were perfectly capable of “walking and chewing gum at the same time.” That isn’t relevant. That question should be whether Democrats are interested in walking and chewing gum at the same time. HINT: They aren’t interested in “walking and chewing gum at the same time.”

This video contains Schiff’s intentionally misleading statements:

Here’s what Sara Carter quoted from the Mueller report debunking Schiff’s intentional lies:

Nunes Lists Democrats Favorite Debunked Conspiracy Theories (Below Is An Excerpt From Nunes Statement)

Unfortunately for Democrats, the Mueller dossier, as I call it, either debunked many of their favorite conspiracy theories or did not even find them worth discussing. These include:

  1. Mueller’s finding that Michael Cohen did not travel to Prague to conspire with Russians. No evidence that Carter Page conspired with Russians.
  2. No mention of Paul Manafort visiting Julian Assange in London.
  3. No mention of secret communications between a Trump Tower computer server and Russia’s Alfa Bank.
  4. And no mention of former NRA lawyer Cleta Mitchell or her supposed knowledge of a scheme to launder Russian money through the NRA for the Trump campaign. Insinuations against Mitchell originated with Fusion GPS chief Glenn Simpson and were first made public in a document published by Democrats on this committee.

Other than those major omissions, I’d treat Chairman Schiff’s statements as though they were Gospel truths.

WOW!!!:


That’s proof positive that Schiff is a partisan Democrat hack. Schiff couldn’t get President Trump so the vindictive wimp trashes innocent victims. What a patriot. Not.

This video is why I don’t watch Fox News Sunday:

Chris Wallace’s interrogation of Rudy Giuliani was disgraceful. Wallace asked multiple multi-faceted questions of Giuliani, then cut Giuliani off before Giuliani could answer. At one point, Giuliani asks “Are you going to let me answer this one?” Wallace replies “I’m trying to ask you some questions”, to which Giuliani replies “But you aren’t letting me answer. That isn’t fair.”

At one point, Wallace exposed his agenda:

GIULIANI: These things — well, wait a second. These things are being done by an innocent man.
WALLACE: This is called an interview. It’s not your closing argument. You got to give me the opportunity —
GIULIANI: No, I’m here to defend the president.
WALLACE: I understand that and I’m here to ask you some questions.
GIULIANI: It gives distorted arguments made by prosecutor who had people who hated him.

It’s exceptionally apparent that Wallace’s agenda was to create controversy that increased ratings. The goal wasn’t to let Mr. Giuliani answer the questions.

Wallace’s questions were about obstruction. The case on obstruction essentially starts with Mueller’s premise that he has the constitutional authority to exonerate. That’s more than a little absurd since the definition of exonerate is “to clear, as of an accusation; free from guilt or blame; exculpate”.

There isn’t a prosecutor in this nation that’s tasked with ultimately deciding guilt or innocence. That’s a jury’s responsibility.

That Wallace went hard after Adam Schiff isn’t proof that Wallace is tough on both sides, though that’s likely how pundits will spin it. It simply means he’s a jackass. Not letting the person answer isn’t helpful in gathering information, which is the moderator’s chief responsibility. On that responsibility, Chris Wallace failed.

Yesterday, Nancy Pelosi insisted that Adam Schiff was a patriot. That’s laughable. It’s more likely that I can beat Hulk Hogan in an arm-wrestling match than it would be to find a consensus that Schiff is a patriot. PS- There’s no chance I’d beat Hulk Hogan.

Democrats are simply prolonging their lie about Russia. Mueller said that he didn’t find any evidence that anyone in the Trump campaign colluded or collaborated with the Russians despite multiple attempts by the Russians.

Here’s something that Pelosi hasn’t answered. A couple months ago, she said that there wasn’t a crisis at the border. With 1,000,000 illegal aliens expected to invade the United States, how can she say that this isn’t a crisis? Only a dingbat from San Francisco could think that. It’s worth noting that San Fran Nan thinks that Kirstjen Nielsen’s figures were a lie.

Now Bill Barr’s report is a lie, too? Just how far does this conspiracy go in San Fran Nan’s mind?

This is proof that a little paranoia goes a long way. Either that or she’s flipped out and can’t be trusted. At this point, who knows? With someone from San Francisco, it could mean anything.

After this morning’s House Intel Committee meeting, it’s impossible to think that Democrats will be able to defend Committee Chairman Adam Schiff much longer.

The article opens by saying “Every Republican on the House Intelligence Committee is calling on Chairman Adam Schiff to resign Thursday, accusing the California Democrat of weaving a ‘demonstrably false’ narrative of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia and ‘undermining’ the credibility of the panel.”

Literally, for years, Chairman Schiff insisted that he’d seen proof that President Trump had colluded with Russians during the 2016 election. After Mike Conaway read the GOP letter, Schiff responded “A visibly emotional Schiff, who did not know this broadside from Republicans was coming, had a strident response. At times raising his voice, he listed a litany of known and controversial interactions between the Trump campaign and Russia – including Donald Trump Jr.’s involvement in the Trump Tower meeting and former campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s sharing of polling data with a Russian associate. “You might think it’s OK,” Schiff said. ‘I don’t.'”

Actually, Mr. Schiff does think it’s ok — if Democrats are employing those tactics. If he thought these things were wrong, why didn’t Schiff present legislation making President Trump’s actions illegal? As chairman of a powerful committee, that legislation, at minimum, would get a hearing. Most likely, that legislation would pass the House.

At this point, there’s no reason to think this isn’t just a stunt. Watch this video and tell me he wasn’t playing to the cameras:

Speaker Pelosi issued this preposterous statement in defense of Schiff:

I’d love to know what type of drugs Ms. Pelosi is taking because they must be powerful if she thinks that a liar like Schiff is a patriot.

In his USA Today op-ed, Adam Schiff proves that a little paranoia goes a long ways. His op-ed is a litany of conjectures that can’t be verified.

For instance, he wrote “A national security adviser who could be subject to blackmail by Russia is nearly a worst case counterintelligence scenario. But this week, we learned that the potential for compromise was even more significant than we thought. Donald Trump’s longtime personal attorney, Michael Cohen, pleaded guilty to lying to the Intelligence Committee about his efforts on behalf of the Trump Organization to reach a deal and secure financing from a Russian bank under U.S. sanctions to build a Trump Tower Moscow.”

Is it Mr. Schiff’s contention that President Trump’s cancellation of his meeting with President Putin was just pageantry? Thus far, President Trump hasn’t shown any signs of being compromised. In fact, he’s shown the opposite. Later, Schiff wrote this:

Cohen stated in court that he made those false statements to be consistent with the president’s “political messaging,” namely Trump’s vociferous public denials of any business dealings with Russia. And in a recent sentencing memorandum, Cohen’s attorneys concede that he remained “in close and regular contact with the White House-based staff and legal counsel” to Trump in the weeks during which his false testimony to Congress was being prepared.

Cohen is a proven liar. There isn’t a reason why anyone should trust anything he says unless there’s corroboration. After 2 years of investigating, that verification hasn’t been found. While it’s possible that there’s something there, the odds of finding that something seem rather slim.

It’s fair, though, to say that Mr. Schiff loves the sound of his voice:

Now that’s an ego as big as the Grand Canyon. The only thing bigger than Mr. Schiff’s ego is his paranoia.

In this video, Laura Ingraham interviews Judge Ken Starr and former assistant US Attorney Andy McCarthy about Jeff Flake’s bill to ‘protect’ Special Counsel Robert Mueller:

I don’t know what they put in the water in Arizona but something’s making their politicians idiots. It’s also making them ignore the Constitution. Why would a US senator think that he can ‘protect’ an employee of the Executive Branch with a bill that’s only passed by one house of Congress? What Sen. Flake is attempting to do is hold up dozens of highly qualified judges until his bill is debated and voted on.

That’s the definition of negotiating from a position of weakness. Even if he temporarily stops this batch of judges, he can only do so until the new year. After that, he’s no longer a US senator. All President Trump has to do is resubmit these judicial nominees to a larger GOP majority and they’ll sail through. By then, too, the spending bills will have been passed.

Finally, let’s be honest about something important. The Russia collusion scandal will either be ancient history before the 2020 presidential election or the public will have turned against Adam Schiff by then. Every time Democrats, including Sen. Flake, have accused him of wanting to stop Mueller’s investigation, President Trump has said he’ll let the investigation run its course.

I haven’t kept track but I’m betting that this has pattern has repeated itself more than a dozen times. At what point will Democrats and Flake figure it out that they’re seen as blowhards? PS- I’m not even certain that they’ll drop this after Mueller’s report is in their hands.

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: , , , , , , , , , ,