It sounds as if Adam Schiff actually believes the words written about him in last weekend’s puff piece from the New York Times. The article was right about two things. Schiff is slightly nerdy and he would never make it as a stand up comedian.
Adam Schiff took his case to the American people today via an op-ed in USA Today. Once again, he tries to spin his narrative to fit the Democrats’ agenda. And once again, he is lying. “As they say in the world of intelligence, Schiff was operating at his usual level of veracity.”
With respect, I disagree so strongly with the ideas expressed in his essay that I would like to present a rebuttal.
(Excerpts from Schiff’s op-ed appear in italics. It can be read in full here.)
1. From the call record alone, we have stark evidence that President Trump sought Ukraine’s help in the 2020 election by pressing that country to investigate a political opponent…The president’s corrupt pressure to secure its interference in our election betrayed our national security and his oath of office…Ascertaining the extent of the president’s misconduct.
We’ve heard it a hundred times over the last few years. The Democrats accuse Republicans of what they themselves have done. They repeat the lies endlessly and with the help of a complicit media, their narratives gain traction.
For over three years, Schiff has been the face of the Democrats’ failed effort to connect President Trump to the Russians. He arrived in Washington in 2001, and remained obscure until he recognized his moment had arrived at the 2016 Democratic National Convention. He became a cheerleader for the new narrative which was that the Russians had hacked the DNC’s computer to help Trump win the election. Happy to talk to any reporter, he soon became the “go-to guy” for anything related to the Trump/Russia investigation. Schiff was finally receiving the admiration he’d craved from the Democratic Party. He never missed an opportunity to assure the American people that evidence of Trump’s collusion with Russia was hiding in plain sight. He’d found his niche. Adam Schiff – spewer of lies and hate.
His words haven’t changed much at all.
In January of 2018, when the House Intelligence Committee (chaired at that time by Devin Nunes) voted to release the Nunes memo which outlined for the first time the deep state’s attempt to use Christopher Steele’s unverified dossier as the basis for obtaining a warrant to spy on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, Schiff told reporters:
Today this committee voted to put the president’s personal interests, perhaps their own political interests, above the national interests. I think we have crossed a deeply regrettable line in this committee. For the first time in the ten years I have been on the committee, there was a vote to politicize the declassification process of intelligence.
Sound familiar? He was lying then and he’s lying now.
Did not the entire investigation originate from the left’s insistence on placing Hillary Clinton’s and the Democrat’s political interests above national interests? Hillary’s campaign and the DNC, which she essentially controlled, paid for the research upon which the fictitious hit piece widely known as the Trump dossier was based.
Conservatives believe that officials inside the FBI “crossed a deeply regrettable line” by allegedly using the unverified, and unverifiable, dossier as the basis for the warrant to spy on Trump’s campaign.
2. This is about more than just one call. From closed door interviews of current and former administration officials, text messages we have obtained, and public admissions by acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and President Trump himself, we now know that the call was just one piece of a larger operation to redirect our foreign policy to benefit Donald Trump’s personal and political interests, not the national interest.
The interviews we have conducted have been thorough, professional and fair, with over one hundred members from both parties eligible to attend — including nearly 50 Republicans — and equal time allotted for questioning to both Democratic and Republican members of Congress and staff. In line with best investigative practices first passed in Congress by the Republicans who now decry them, we have held these interviews in private to ensure that witnesses are not able to tailor their testimony to align with others at the expense of the truth.
Fair, Mr. Schiff? Was it fair when you refused to allow witness Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman to answer Rep. Jim Jordan’s (R-OH) question? Vindman had testified about sharing the readouts of President Trump’s July 25th call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. When Jordan asked who the members of this group might be, you shut him down. Were you afraid Vindman might have said that Eric Ciaramella was one of them?
Is it fair that Republicans must obtain your permission to subpoena witnesses? Is it fair that the recent resolution, the one that was supposed to increase transparency, fails to allow the Trump administration the due process that any other U.S. citizen has a right to until the third phase?
Is it fair that a member of your staff met with the whistleblower prior to his submission of the complaint to the Intelligence Community’s Inspector General? Does that make you a fact witness?
Did you meet with the whistleblower in advance of his complaint? Did a member of your staff help him write it?
Why did you hire two of his former colleagues in August?
Was Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman the one who told Eric Ciaramella about the call?
Why did you lie to Joe Scarborough when he asked if you or your staff had any contact with the whistleblower prior to the date he filed his complaint?
Is it fair that a bureaucrat whose dishonesty triggered an impeachment inquiry against the President gets to remain anonymous?
It is the right of every U.S. citizen to face their accuser. Why are you depriving the President of that right?
Oh, and by the way, where is all that evidence of Trump/Russia collusion that you told us day after day was in plain sight? Why didn’t you tell Robert Mueller about it?
If this process were fair, you may have had a Republican or two support the resolution. Frankly, I’m surprised more Democrats didn’t refuse to support it.
Compared to the process followed in the Nixon and Clinton impeachments, the current process is highly irregular and that cannot be disputed.
3. Shining examples of patriotism
Over the past several weeks, dedicated, nonpartisan public servants have come forward to share what they know about the president’s misconduct based on what they witnessed over the course of months, describing and corroborating key details and events regarding U.S. foreign policy towards Ukraine. Nearly all have testified despite efforts by the White House to prevent them from telling their story. These career civil servants, diplomats and veterans of our armed services are American patriots and shining examples of what it means to defend and protect our Constitution.
The witnesses have testified about the extent to which certain levers of government power were used in the service of the President’s political interests; whether congressionally approved security assistance to an ally was improperly withheld to give the president maximum leverage for his political demands; and whether a White House meeting, which Ukraine’s new president desperately sought as validation at home, was conditioned on Ukraine’s willingness to launch and publicly announce sham political investigations to discredit the unanimous conclusion that Russia interfered in the 2016 election and into President Trump’s potential political rival in 2020.
Schiff’s evidence is nothing more than an accumulation of the different interpretations of government officials who have differences of opinion with the President when it comes to foreign policy. In addition, most of Schiff’s witnesses are anti-Trumpers who would like nothing better than to see him impeached. Last I heard, it is the President who decides how he will conduct foreign policy.
Schiff has the nerve to talk about which levers of government power were used in the service of the President’s political interests. The Democrats have pulled out all the stops to bring this President down. Putting aside all of the government officials and resources involved in the Trump/Russian collusion plot, let’s look at a few of their more recent uses of the levers of government power.
Travel documents reveal that a Schiff staffer met with Schiff witness Bill Taylor, the acting ambassador to Ukraine, on a trip to Ukraine in late August. This trip was arranged by The Atlantic Council. I posted about that here.
Many of the individuals involved in the impeachment inquiry, both staffers and witnesses are associated with The Atlantic Council, a super liberal think-tank which receives much of its funding from Burisma Holdings, the Ukrainian natural gas company where Hunter Biden had served as a board member.
Ukrainian billionaire and longtime contributor to the Clinton Foundation Victor Pinchuk, serves on the International Advisory Board of the Atlantic Council. So does James Clapper, who served as Obama’s Director of National Intelligence. In addition, the Chief Technology Officer of CrowdStrike, Dmitri Alperovitch, is a nonresident senior fellow in cybersecurity at the Atlantic Council. The DNC called CrowdStrike to inspect their server after they claimed they had been hacked. The DNC never allowed the FBI anywhere near their server.
The point is they are all connected. They all know each other.
Why is it wrong for Trump to want to investigate the documented proof that DNC operatives worked with Ukrainian officials to sway the election to Hillary Clinton. If you don’t believe me, believe Politico’s Kenneth Vogel who published the results of his investigation in January 2017. Vogel, a liberal, and co-author David Stern conducted a study of Ukrainian/Democratic efforts to sabotage Trump in 2016 election. He found that a Ukrainian official leaked the “black ledger” that led to Paul Manafort’s forced resignation from the Trump campaign and bolstered the bogus counterintelligence investigation initiated by the FBI just several weeks before. DNC operatives worked with Ukrainian officials to dig up dirt on Trump. Days before the election, a top Ukrainian official wrote an op-ed which was very damaging to Trump, to name a few. Several months ago, Glenn Beck uncovered an audio tape that had apparently been floating around Ukraine for years and only recently translated into English. On the recording, the Director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), Artem Sytnyk, admits trying to help Hillary Clinton win the election. I posted about that here.
4. Impeachment is correct remedy…
While temperatures might run high and the temptation to turn this solemn process into a political circus could be irresistible to some, I hope that all members of Congress and the public will focus on the facts and the substance of the testimony, not on politics or partisanship.
President Trump loves America. He is one of the most patriotic presidents we’ve ever had.
And you, Mr. Schiff, are such an amazing arschloch.
5. For over a year, I resisted calls for an impeachment inquiry because impeachment was intended to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. But the Founders who devised our government understood that someday, a president might come to power who would fail to defend the Constitution or would sacrifice the country’s national security in favor of his own personal or political interests, and that Congress would need to consider such a remedy.
You’ve been aching to impeach this President since the day he was elected. There was a brief period of time, following the release of the Mueller report, when you appeared to surrender. You said you would just wait for the American people to oust this lawless President. Then before anyone knew it, you were back on the impeachment train.
6. Tragically, that time has come.
Tragically, for Democrats, the DOJ’s IG report on FISA abuse is due to be released any day and the Barr/Durham inquiry just morphed into a criminal investigation. That doesn’t just happen out of the blue. Durham’s team has clearly found evidence of a crime.
Go ahead and get it over with. Impeach the President if you must. Then the matter will be out of your hands and you will become irrelevant – again. Regardless of whether or not an impeachment in the House passes, the Senate will not convict him. On Tuesday, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said if the Senate were to vote today, there is no question the President would be acquitted.
Oh, and regarding that little asterisk next to Trump’s name which indicates he was impeached by the House? Let me tell you how this little story ends.
History books will recount that President Trump’s first term was fraught with peril. The Democrats, who harbored intense hatred for the President plotted several soft coups against him. They even had the audacity to impeach him based on one of the traps they’d set up. Shortly after the impeachment took place, the President was acquitted by the Senate and he went on to win reelection by a landslide. Shortly after Trump’s second victory, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Adam Schiff, who were most responsible for the whole affair, retired in disgrace to the once beautiful state they had allowed to become so toxic.