Search
Archives

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

Categories

Archive for the ‘Adam Schiff’ Category

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: , , , , , , , , , ,

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.