[

In light of what was reported yesterday about what House Intel Committee Chair Adam Schiff knew and when he knew it regarding the whistleblower complaint, a whole lot of apologists are predictably weighing in essentially saying his deception was/is no big deal.

CNBC’s John Harwood was one such person, and he specifically took issue with comments veteran journalist Brit Hume made about the New York Times’ report on Schiff’s early knowledge of the complaint. Here’s what Hume wrote:

Hume is, of course, right, but Harwood responded with what he probably thought was a brilliant takedown. Hume wasn’t having it:

Later in the day, Hume pinpointed some of the biggest flaws in the arguments Schiff’s defenders were making:

Schiff and company point to his use of the word “directly” when he was asked about what he knew in a recent interview:

… as if that puts him in the free and clear on the issue colluding with the whistleblower well in advance.

It doesn’t.

Reps. Liz Cheney and Doug Collins were right. This looks like a political set-up a la the Russia collusion hoax.

I’d say Schiff and his minions should be ashamed but that would mean assuming they had any shame. They don’t.

——
— Based in North Carolina, Sister Toldjah is a former liberal and a 15+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here. Connect with her on Twitter. –