Adam Schiff’s lifetime of lies

Loading

 

By now you know that Adam Schiff is a chronic liar but you might not know how pervasive his lying is. At Real Clear Politics Frank Miele captures Schiff quite succinctly:

You can take your pick for the most famous liars in history — people who are willing to say anything for the sake of gaining and keeping power — but surely Rep. Adam Schiff has earned a place on that list.

I won’t call Schiff a “congenital liar” — as Fox News personality Sean Hannity does nightly — but only because the term excuses Schiff of personal responsibility for his behavior. I don’t think it was his genes that made Schiff into a consummate liar but rather his narcissistic personality.

Watching Schiff spin his yarns as chief House manager for the impeachment trial of Donald J. Trump reminds me of the great dissemblers of Shakespeare, such as “Honest Iago,” who is only comfortable in his own skin when he is making the skin of others crawl. The “motiveless malignity” that poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge ascribed to Iago is writ large in the perfunctory perfidy that Schiff practices with unassuming ease. He would destroy a king, but he assures us he takes no pleasure in it, wink-wink, nod-nod.

Yes, Adam Schiff is a monstrous liar. You will remember him fabricating out of whole cloth the conversation between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky, entering it into the official record in the House.

 “I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand, lots of it, on this and on that. I’m going to put you in touch with people, not just any people, I’m going to put you in touch with the attorney general of the United States, my attorney general Bill Barr. He’s got the whole weight of the American law enforcement behind him.”

Later he would call it “parody.”

The last four years have been a novel of Schiff lies

Mr. Schiff also quoted Mr. Steele on a purported conspiracy between campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Mr. Page: “According to Steele, it was Manafort who chose Page to serve as a go-between for the Trump campaign and Russian interests.”

Independent evidence shows the two never knew or spoke with each other.

Mr. Schiff also said Mr. Steele was “highly regarded” by U.S. intelligence.

When Mr. Page later appeared before the committee, Mr. Schiff repeatedly quoted the dossier in questioning the former aide, forcing him to disprove what Mr. Steele had written.

He claimed repeatedly that he had secret evidence of Russian collusion “in plain sight”:

Mr. Schiff said several times that he had seen evidence of Trump-Russia collusion to interfere in the election and it was beyond circumstantial.

He began this talking point in March 2017.

“I can tell you that the case is more than that,” he said on MSNBC. “And I can’t go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now.”

Special counsel Robert Mueller said in his March 2019 report that he did not find a Trump election conspiracy. No Trump associate was charged in such a conspiracy.

Then there was the battle over FISA abuse

After Mr. Nunes issued a memo in 2018 disclosing FISA abuses, Mr. Schiff issued a countermemo that proved off-base on several points.

Mr. Schiff titled his Jan. 29, 2018, countermemo “Correcting the Record — The Russia Investigation.”

“FBI and DOJ officials did not ‘abuse’ the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) process, omit material information, or subvert this vital tool to spy on the Trump campaign,” he said.

In fact, Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz’s Dec. 9 report found that the FBI did abuse FISA. He found 17 instances in which agents submitted inaccurate information to the judge or omitted exculpatory statements about Mr. Page.

Schiff wasn’t content to be just wrong

Mr. Schiff said in his countermemo: “In subsequent FISA renewals, DOJ provided additional information obtained through multiple independent sources that corroborated Steele’s reporting.”

Not true, said Mr. Horowitz. None of Mr. Steele’s reporting in the warrant was ever corroborated. In fact, FBI agents acquired evidence from Mr. Steele’s main source, who placed great doubt in Mr. Steele’s allegations. But the FBI left this evidence out of subsequent warrant renewals.

He accused Trump of money laundering

“During the prior Congress, the Committee began to pursue credible reports of money laundering and financial compromise related to the business interests of President Trump, his family, and his associates,” Mr. Schiff said.

He said he planned to look into the “extent of any links and/or coordination between the Russian government, or related foreign actors, and individuals associated with Donald Trump’s campaign, transition, administration, or business interests, in furtherance of the Russian government’s interests.”

By the time Mr. Schiff wrote this anti-Trump agenda, Mr. Mueller had completed his investigation and found no election conspiracy. There is no hint in his report of money laundering.

Schiff continued to leak false stories

In 2017 and 2018, committee Republicans said that Mr. Schiff’s side leaked a number of bogus stories, such as Russian Facebook ads in Wisconsin and Michigan, and Donald Trump Jr.’s communication with WikiLeaks.

There’s even more at the link.

When asked directly, Schiff denied having any contact with the whistleblower. It was another lie. The other day Schiff denied knowing the identity of the whistleblower. No one believes him.

After defending spying by Obama on the Trump campaign, Schiff said investigating a Presidential rival is wrong.

Schiff claimed the evidence the House committee had on Trump was “overwhelming” and “uncontested” but then asserted more witnesses were necessary because the Senate could not just “rely on what was investigated in the House.”

Schiff has frequently demanded that witnesses be allowed in the Senate in order to assure a “a fair trial.”  He went to Harvard law school and apparently graduated but seems not have any understanding of the American legal system. In this country a fair trial is fair to the accused, not to the prosecution. And as I wrote previously, nowhere in the legal system is it stipulated that defendants must provide witnesses for the prosecution after the prosecution chose not to pursue them. Schiff had his chance to have witnesses. He and Nadler demurred. That’s no one else’s fault and it is NOT the obligation of the President’s team to correct their blunder.

Schiff is a former Federal prosecutor. That’s particularly frightening as it makes one wonder just how many innocent people are behind bars consequent to Schiff lies.

Politico trumpeted a story of how out of the Trump impeachment Schiff has become a superstar

Sitting shoulder to shoulder on the Senate floor as they argue for the president’s removal from office, two men — Adam Schiff of California and Hakeem Jeffries of New York — have been catapulted to the front of the nation’s consciousness, to the top of the Democratic Party and have become the fulcrum for speculation about a host of prominent positions both in the House and beyond.

One of the only real hard facts out of the impeachment is just how grandiose a liar Adam Schiff is. It’s a bad time in this country when being an inveterate liar in a trial makes you a superstar. If and when the Senate gets around to it, they should entertain witnesses to testify- with Adam Schiff being number one.

I am so pleased that this impeachment nonsense has blown up in his face. He’s done a lot of damage this country.

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
312 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

@Swordmaker:

What is my point? That closed executive sessions where such Identified Tax Returns would have juicy data leaked to the press as soon as a Democrat member could find a microphone. Guaranteed!

How can anyone forget how Adam Schiff, holding his inquisitions in the basement bunker, would adjourn for a break only to run to a waiting and panting press in the hall way?

As to the Atkinson testimony, Comrade Greggie will claim that it is to national security information that cannot be released. Can you name ONE whistleblower to has received the right to remain anonymous? Obama fired them, although the Whistleblower Act provided them with being retaliated against by job loss.

@retire05: As to the Atkinson testimony, national security information, that absolutely must be looked into. Those surrounding the POTUS must all be able to keep classified information to themselves. We know the treason twins were hired by Bolton, The WB by McMasters, some leaving to join lying Schiffs staff.

@Greg:

It didn’t come into being because Congress was taking some particular interest in what shopkeepers or factory workers might be doing in the shadows. It’s purpose is to allow Congress to keep a watchful eye on public officials—members of Congress included.

BZZZZTTT! Wrong.

ROTFLMAO! Teapot Dome! Snort! Rolling eyes everywhere! Do you have any idea at all how many government officials in 1922 – 1923 would even have to file a tax return? In 1922 they reduced the marginal tax rates even more. In 1926, the Secretary of the Treasury’s Annual compensation was $5,000, and his marginal Income tax rate was 5%. If he he and his wife had four kids, his adjusted income would have been just $2200, with a 4% Income tax before itemized deductions! The Secretary’s Income Tax bill due would have been $88. . . but I’m sure he’d have some itemized expenses to deduct. 95% of Federal government workers were likely below the filing limit on adjusted gross wages. (I looked all of these facts up. They’re not hard to find. Try it sometime. You might learn something before you ignorantly spout off. . . such as claiming that Congress or NY prosecutors can magically find Russian Loan data in President Trump’s tax returns.

If they were writing a Tax Return Confidentiality Section of the IRS Code due to concerns about public officials’ malfeasance in office, it wouldn’t be in this form. It would be in a specific public officials malfeasance Act, on its own, not as a subsection of the confidentiality of IRS information exceptions. Again, I strongly suggest you learn how to read laws, and now add to what you need to learn is how laws are written.

Again, how many times do I have to say this?

Congress plays NO role in investigation of individual malfeasance, financial or otherwise! That is the province of the Department of Justice, and they are charged with looking into that. NOT CONGRESS!

Congress’ job is to make laws to empower that. It is not Congress’s job to execute the laws they make; they’re a legislative body, not an executive or investigation body. The only legitimate purpose a congressional committee can have in seeing tax returns is to make amendments to tax laws or new tax laws, legislation that affects tax payers in general, not a specific tax payer.

If what you claim were the case, there is no way anyone could find Malfeasance Review of Tax Returns as a part of such a malfeasance law, it would be buried in the IRS Code.

No, Greg, you are making it up as you go along, blowing blue smoke up our Assets. You think it sounds good, but it’s just made up twaddle.

@Greg:

Mnuchin

Steven Mnuchin was Secretary of the Treasury. Commissioner Rettig is, as far as I know, is still Commissioner of the IRS. . . . and you’re just throwing red herrings. They stink because they’re last month’s herrings.

We’ve already gone over what happened in court with the House’s fishing expedition lawsuit. More stinking dead fish which the court properly tossed back at them as so much rotting chum. It wasn’t for a legitimate legislative purpose. “NO!”

@Swordmaker: But he got it from a tax expert, they worked at H&R block making tax appointments and coffee!
Greg is also an expert at the EZ form.

@Greg:

In my opinion, anyone who believes a certain percentage of human beings wouldn’t secretly misuse their powers of a public office to enrich themselves if they believe no one is watching is very naive. There’s an obvious need for Congress to be able to quietly check without having to establish probable cause. It’s the best deterrent.

You do realize these “executive, closed sessions” are bipartisan don’t you? If you think a Devin Nuñes, Jim Jordan or, if the parties were reversed, a Jerry Nadler or an Adam Schiff would sit still for such shenanigans, you’re sadly mistaken. They watchdog each other and that’s the way it should be.

That’s another of retire05’s lines.

Smart guy. He’s right.

@kitt:

Greg is also an expert at the EZ form.

Are we thinking he’s actually filed a return and isn’t just a dependent of Mom down in his basement lair somewhere?

@Swordmaker: He fills out moms forms all those deductions are simply a subsidies to avoid paying ones fair share so EZ the only way to go.

@Greg:

One matter of congressional interest might be the possibility of Money from Russia, by way of improbable Deutsche Bank loans. New York prosecutors might be more interested in tax evasion and loan fraud.

By the way, loan fraud would only apply on a Federally or state chartered bank for a real estate loan where the property is secured by valuation and the borrower’s ability to pay. Misstating either fraudulently could be grounds for a fraud, or for borrowing the money for a fraudulent purpose, such as taking out a home improvement loan and using the money for paying bills, which despite the fungible nature of money could result in a fraud finding as was done to Michael Cohen. On the other hand, bridge loans for building hotels, developments, and office buildings, foreign loans, etc., are done on contract, and are not residential loans. The ability of payment is based on future rental income estimates, etc. not the borrower’s current assets and income. These contracts have fraud clauses written in them. They are not controlled by the same laws you’re thinking about. Donald Trump doesn’t go to banks asking for a loan, they go to him wanting to lend him money.

And no, Greg, I’m disappointed in you. Loans are not income. They would not show up on Income Tax. . . they’re not reportable. They’re not taxable. They aren’t expenses per se either.

Besides, many of Trump’s ventures are corporations and would file separate income tax returns. Trump would get either a dividend, or none at all, with just the value of his interest in the business increasing until he decides to monetize it. Also, non-taxable until monetized. Trust me, having been a CEO, I can tell you Income Taxes don’t reveal what you think they do.

Trump’s books for taxes have been audited every which way from Sunday by the Tax attorneys he’s hired and the IRS. Why do you think I kept tax attorneys on my payroll? Is it because I liked paying large salaries? No, it is so my corporate and personal tax returns were as accurate as possible, and so they were available to argue with IRS as to why they were right, when IRS disagreed!

If you as a tax payer call IRS ten times and ask the identical question, you’ll likely get six differing answers. . . And the agents will swear they’re giving you the right answer. Likely three are legal and correct. . . but as it’s probably only one of those gets you the best refund, you gotta guess which of the six is legal, correct, and the best refund! LOL!

Why three? Simple, three different rulings from three different administrative tax courts! Take your pick. The other three answers might have an IRS regulation that backs them up, but you might have to go before a judge and convince him or her, or these days, maybe ter, so ask the agent who told you that advice his name. Now guess whether the IRS auditor who goes over your taxes is going to be as well schooled on the IRS regulations, tax law, and case law, as the ten agents you got to answer your question, and good luck with that!

Oh, did I mention. . . this is the agency that was put in charge of ObamaCare!

No wonder the ACA Website cost three times more to get up and running than the total estimated cost to build President Trump’s entire Southern Border Wall!

@Swordmaker:“The House of Representatives is demanding, among other things, records of every single checking withdrawal, credit-card swipe, or debit-card purchase — no matter how trivial or small — made by each and every member of the Trump family,” Trump’s lawyers stated.
Including the grandchildren.

@kitt:

He fills out moms forms all those deductions are simply a subsidies to avoid paying ones fair share so EZ the only way to go.

No doubt claiming himself, two dogs, six cats, a life size cardboard C3P0, and a hamster as Mom’s dependents.

@Swordmaker:

(I looked all of these facts up. They’re not hard to find. Try it sometime. You might learn something before you ignorantly spout off. . . such as claiming that Congress or NY prosecutors can magically find Russian Loan data in President Trump’s tax returns.

But.. but… but then how would he defend his ideology? If he had to deal in just facts, he would have to renounce the Democrat party.

Congress plays NO role in investigation of individual malfeasance, financial or otherwise!

But how could the Democrats in Congress dig up the dirt they need to tell people how to vote and manipulate elections unless they have the authority to delve into all the privacy of anyone and everyone? Democrats have proven themselves so morally superior that they and only they should expose opponents’ personal lives to examination for the public good. Gosh, Swordmaker… don’t you know ANYTHING?

Steven Mnuchin was Secretary of the Treasury. Commissioner Rettig is, as far as I know, is still Commissioner of the IRS. . . . and you’re just throwing red herrings. They stink because they’re last month’s herrings.

Again, the goal is to show anyone that dares work for the opposition that they are subject to intense personal scrutiny on a permanent basis. It is fascism.

Perhaps Greg gets his tax expertise from his “vote harvesting” training in California. I’m sure the Democrat handlers of that scheme provide a thorough training in tax law.

If you as a tax payer call IRS ten times and ask the identical question, you’ll likely get six differing answers. . . And the agents will swear they’re giving you the right answer.

True fact. Long ago, my mother used to actually do that. She would call about a deduction and keep calling until someone told her it was permissible. It’s notable that, then, they didn’t ask her party affiliation.

You’re doing a seriously good job, Swordmaker.

@kitt:

@Swordmaker:“The House of Representatives is demanding, among other things, records of every single checking withdrawal, credit-card swipe, or debit-card purchase — no matter how trivial or small — made by each and every member of the Trump family,” Trump’s lawyers stated.Including the grandchildren.

Well, they JUST want to make sure we’re all safe.

1 5 6 7