Saying that Chairman Schiff’s imagination is vivid is understatement. This transcript highlights Schiff’s imagination:

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): No, it isn’t a failure. At least, it’s not a failure in the sense of our constitutional duty in the House. And I will tell you what changed my mind, George, because you’re right. I resisted going down this road towards impeachment. But it was two things. It was the discovery of the most egregious conduct to date. It was one thing with the president invited foreign interference as a candidate, when he couldn’t use the power of his office to make it so.

It was another when, as president of the United States, he withheld hundreds of millions of dollars to coerce an ally, betray our national security, and try to cheat in the next election. That was not something we could turn away from.

But it was one more fact, George, that I think made it inexorable. And that is the fact that it was the day after Bob Mueller testified, the day after Donald Trump felt that he was beyond accountability for his first misconduct, that he was back on the phone, this time with President Zelensky, trying to get that country to help him cheat in the next election.

It’s frightening to think that the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, aka HPSCI, could look at the Trump-Zelenskiy phone call transcript, then think that President Trump was asking President Zelenskiy to “help him cheat in the next election.” Anyone who’s read that 5-page transcript knows that didn’t happen. Only a disturbed person would think that. What’s Chairman Schiff’s proof that President Trump tried cheating in the next election? His vivid imagination? In the U.S. judicial system, great men like Hamilton, Jefferson and Madison insisted that a man couldn’t be convicted without evidence.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally Chairman Schiff, before we go, I do want to ask you a question about the Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report on the FBI investigation into the Russia investigation. As you know, it found that there were significant errors, 17 significant errors and omission in that FISA surveillance application for Carter Page, and you’ve received some criticism because of your past claims that there were not any omissions. The Wall Street Journal editorial page, I want to show it right now:

Mr. Schiff claimed DOJ met the rigor, transparency and evidentiary basis needed to meet FISA court standards. But Mr. Horowitz makes clear that FBI officials didn’t even tell senior Justice officials about the concerns and irregularities of its Page application. Would the court have granted the warrants if it knew the whole story? We don’t know.

Do you accept that your original judgments were wrong, and what can you do about it?

SCHIFF: Well, I certainly accept that two years later, 170 interviews later, and 2 million documents later, the inspector general found things that we didn’t know two years ago. And I certainly concur with the inspector general’s conclusion that there need to be significant changes to the FISA process. We just didn’t have that evidence available two years ago.

That’s BS. The DOJ IG report verified that the Nunes Memo verified everything and that it got those things right. The other thing that’s interesting is that the DOJ IG report says that then-Chairman Nunes didn’t get a single thing wrong. Then-Chairman Nunes got each detail right.

Question: How could Schiff get each detail wrong and then-Chairman Nunes get each detail right? Not only that, Schiff’s memo contested each of the main points of the Nunes Memo.

If anything that Schiff said isn’t protected by the Constitution’s Speech & Debate Clause, then he’s in trouble. Additionally, there’s no doubt that the FBI is in legal hot water:

Watching the entire Ratcliffe interview is stunning.

Leave a Reply