Adam Schiff is a Liar!

by Jack

The Congressman from CA, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, should be kicked off the intelligence committee.  Why? Because we can’t trust him – he’s way too partisan and he deliberately lied when he said his office had not spoken to the Ukraine whistleblower prior to that individual filing a complaint against President Trump.    

It was this big fat whooper that now threatens to undermine the credibility and of  Schiff and his committee, that is, if it really had any to start with?  

I can see now there is no way this kangaroo court of inquiry is going to produce anything rising to the level of impeachment.  Trump need not do one single thing to defend himself…just let them implode in their rush to judgement.  Adam Schiff blew it because he is a bungler par excellance’, Pelosi feared this would happen.  Why do you think she’s been so reluctant to get involved?   As Shakespeare once said, “hoist with his own petard”  Nice going Rep. Schiff – ya liar.  

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

65 Responses to Adam Schiff is a Liar!

  1. Libby says:

    Poor Jack.

    I wish you’d try, a little, to keep things straight. Of course Trump will be impeached. His call with the Ukrainian Prez may have been “perfect”, by his standards, but Trump has no ethical or personal integrity at all. He baldly attempted to extort a foreign leader for political gain. That is unconstitutional, that is. And now we hear he tried the same stunt with Australia ???? Bizzarro.

    What Trump will likely not be, is removed from office. An impeachment is not a conviction. The Senate (aka McConnell) has made it very plain it will not act on articles of impeachment … which is just as well.

    I don’t want Trump removed and Pence sworn in. THAT would be bad, bad, bad political news. All those “white suburban women” who disgraced themselves in 2016, may not be able to bring themselves to vote for the pathological liar again, but they’d vote for Pence.

    This we cannot have. What we want, are the particulars of Trump’s thuggish behavior in perpetual circulation for the next year. And it’s starting to look like Pompeo and Barr are implicated in the cover-up … which is huge. I’d like to see Barr disbarred … yes I would.

    Oh, Happy, Happy, Happy Days Ahead!

    • Chris says:

      I don’t want Trump removed and Pence sworn in. THAT would be bad, bad, bad political news. All those “white suburban women” who disgraced themselves in 2016, may not be able to bring themselves to vote for the pathological liar again, but they’d vote for Pence.

      See, I disagree. Trump has an animated base that wants to vote again to give the finger to everyone who knows they’re smarter than they are. Pence, while more tolerable to the suburban white women you describe, can’t summon even a fraction of that energy. And he’d be in a weak position given his constant cowtowing to and enabling of a president who was removed for corruption that Pence himself was certainly involved in. I don’t see Pence winning in 2020, but even if he did, that would be better for the Republic than another Trump win. Pence is a normal amount of evil, whereas Trump remains an existential threat.

      • Libby says:

        I suppose I must own to a certain amount of personal antipathy. Pence is so very “Handmaid’s Tale.” I don’t want him dictating national policy of any sort.

        And think about this: if Trump is allowed to leave office (in fervent defiance, instead of utter disgrace), and with his base more-or-less intact, he and Don, Jr. will go start up their TV station (to which Peggy would spend the rest of her life glued), and this would not be good.

  2. Libby says:

    Oh, and to address your post more directly … to parrot Trump’s ludicrous and unhealthy obsession with Schiff, which is beyond baseless … is to be a parrot.

    Trump can jump up and down howling “TREASON” till hell freezes over … it’s only jumping and howling and totally without any bases in reality.

    • Chris says:

      A president baselessly accusing his political opponents of “treason”–which the Founders defined very carefully, given they did not want a king–is reason enough for any moral Congress to impeach. It reveals such a fundamental ignorance and contempt for the Constitution that it renders him obviously unfit for the office.

      But we’re the only ones here who care.

  3. cherokee jack says:

    Jack: The Democrats were openly planning impeachment when the first signs of a Trump presidency were appearing. Yeah, Schiff is a liar, but show me a liberal who isn’t. Schiff just got the short straw this time. Want to hear some world class lying? Just watch the impeachment hearings, if your stomach is strong enough. They’ll take turns trying to out-lie one another, with the symbiotic media slobbering their full support.

    • Libby says:

      Yeah, well, Trump HAS been deplorable from day one.

      You are all such hypocrites … what if Clinton has refused to divest? You’d have all pi$$ed yerselves indignant.

      As it is … what are we going to do if our executive branch, say Pompeo and Barr, flatly refuse to honor their Constitutional obligations to the legislative branch? I do not believe that there is a Constitutional mechanism for dealing with this. It’s always just been assumed that the executive branch would NEVER be criminal … but it would seem that it is.

      This is a problem.

      I mean, Clinton did testify, and he was impeached, and he took his disbarment like a gentlemen. That ain’t how this is going to go, apparently.

      • cherokee jack says:

        Lose the thread again, Libby? Your Chatty Cathy approach to a subject could become annoying. Fortunately for you, you’ve got Chris, another adherent of the non sequitur when the going gets uncomfortable. He’ll support your drivel.

        • Libby says:

          What are you talkin’? I cut you a considerable break. It is idiotic to assert that the Dems were planning impeachment BEFORE the man was elected. It also displays a shockingly poor memory, as the Trump’s election what a HUGE surprise … even to Trump !!

          But … still … I conceded your larger point. We’ve been gunning for the man … right from the baldly lying about the turnout for his inauguration. A braggart in the White House? Most decidedly NOT a stable genius.

      • Peggy says:

        LOL Libs, Clinton was a “gentlemen”? Yeah, right. He cut a deal on his last day in office to keep his behind out of jail. And to get that he had to plead guilty for his crimes. He was and still is a misogynistic scumbag.

        In a Deal, Clinton Avoids Indictment:

        “With just hours left in office, President Clinton reached a deal with the independent counsel yesterday that ensures he will avoid indictment for his misleading statements about Monica S. Lewinsky. In exchange, Clinton offered prosecutor Robert W. Ray something he had never before been willing to give: a forthright admission that he gave false testimony under oath.”

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/01/20/in-a-deal-clinton-avoids-indictment/bb80cc4c-e72c-40c1-bb72-55b2b81c3065/

        • Chris says:

          LOL Libs, Clinton was a “gentlemen”? Yeah, right. He cut a deal on his last day in office to keep his behind out of jail. And to get that he had to plead guilty for his crimes.

          None of this happened. You literally do not know what any of these terms mean, and none of this is supported by the article you linked to. Getting out of an indictment is not the same as getting out of jail, and the admission mentioned in the article is not “pleading guilty” for a crime. I have watched you talk about law and government here for over a decade now, and you’ve learned literally nothing about either subject.

        • Libby says:

          “He cut a deal on his last day in office to keep his behind out of jail.”

          Liar.

          “On December 19, 1998, Clinton became the second American president to be impeached (the other being Andrew Johnson who was impeached in 1868),[a] when the House formally adopted the articles of impeachment and forwarded them to the United States Senate for adjudication. The trial in the Senate began in January 1999, with Chief Justice William Rehnquist presiding. On February 12, Clinton was acquitted on both counts as neither received the necessary two-thirds majority vote of the senators present for conviction and removal from office – in this instance 67. On Article One, 45 senators voted to convict while 55 voted for acquittal. On Article Two, 50 senators voted to convict while 50 voted for acquittal.[3] Consequently, Clinton remained in office for the balance of his second term.”

          And from Wikipedia, fer pity’s sake! Is EVERYTHING, but the musings of your tiny mind … fake?

          This is getting really very sad.

          He was impeached, but not convicted. He was disbarred, and did NOT threaten to “utterly destroy” anybody or anything. By today’s standards, that makes him a gentleman.

        • Peggy says:

          Hey Chris and Libs, you two really need to stop calling me a liar and not knowing what I’m talking about. Clinton did cut a deal with the prosecutor on his last day in office to avoid being tried for his crimes AFTER he walked out of the oval office.

          ” The deal guarantees Clinton will not face trial or any punishment after leaving office.”

          Didn’t like my last source here’s another. Otherwise look up others for yourself. Google is cheap and easy.

          DEPARTING CLINTON CUTS DEAL:

          “Only 24 hours before relinquishing the presidency, President Clinton on Friday reached a sweeping agreement with prosecutors in which he admitted he “knowingly gave evasive and misleading answers” under oath when he denied having sexual relations with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

          Clinton also agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license and promised to pay $25,000 in legal fees. The deal guarantees Clinton will not face trial or any punishment after leaving office.

          A trial would have been an unprecedented humiliation for a former president and could have revived the searing national debate that led to his impeachment in December 1998. It also would have threatened to overshadow the Bush presidency, and Friday’s action relieves incoming President George W. Bush of having to decide whether to pardon Clinton.

          The agreement allows Clinton to leave office today without legal clouds over his head, but it also forced him to acknowledge for the first time that he testified falsely under oath. Clinton aides stressed that he did not admit any crimes and that the agreement was not a plea deal, though it clearly resembled one.

          “I have apologized for my conduct, and I have done my best to atone for it with my family, my administration and the American people,” Clinton said in a written statement. “I have paid a high price for it, which I accept because it caused so much pain to so many people. I hope my actions today will help bring closure and finality to these matters.”

          “This matter is now concluded,” Ray said. “May history and the American people judge that it has been completed justly.”

          The emergence of a deal on Clinton’s last day in office to avoid a criminal trial was in some ways a fitting end to his presidency. The night before, Clinton had trumpeted his successes. The two images encapsulated the Clinton presidency — economic prosperity and high competence marred by personal humiliation.”

          https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xpm-2001-01-20-0101200078-story.html

          • Chris says:

            You are moving the goalposts, and the information you provided does not match your original claim, for the reasons I explained in my first comment. Perhaps consider joining a program in your area that teaches Trump supporters how to read.

          • Libby says:

            “The emergence of a deal on Clinton’s last day in office to avoid a criminal trial was in some ways a fitting end to his presidency.” Peggy, this is an orange … to my apple. You have to stop doing this, or we’ll change your name to Tina.

            And history is about to repeat itself … maybe.

            I’m not sure lying about sex is in the same moral ballpark as, say, Kurdish genocide. We will just have to see how things work out.

          • Chris says:

            And Trump has, of course, also lied about sex.

  4. Peggy says:

    Democrats are guilty of what they’re accusing Trump of doing. If you haven’t heard the whole audio of Schiff getting punked by Russian radio hosts, it’s worth the time to hear him agree to get “naked pictures of Trump. It’s hilarious and maddening.

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/02/adam-schiff-duped-russian-pranksters-claiming-putin-naked-blackmail-pics-potus-trump-tells-staff-collect-classified-materials-fbi-audio/

    Also, Mark Levin had a excellent radio show Wednesday night tearing apart the NY Times’ article that outed Schiff’s involvement with the whistleblower. It’s not available online yet, but recommend hearing it when it is.

    • Chris says:

      Peggy, since I won’t be clicking a link to any website that once proudly employed Jacob Wohl, can you tell me if this is the clip where Adam Schiff said he’d report any such incriminating detail on Trump, and any contacts involving said dirt, to the FBI, as multiple Trump campaign officials failed to do during the 2016 election?

      • Peggy says:

        Yes, Chris this is the recording of Schiff agreeing to make arrangements for his staff to get the naked Trump pictures and other damaging material Putin had seen.

        PS. Schiff is going down in a liar’s pile of shift.

        • Chris says:

          Other than the word “yes,” that did not answer my question. Are you acknowledging that Schiff said he would report all of this to the FBI–and that his staff did, in fact, inform them of the call? Are you choosing to intentionally ignore the fact that, when members of Trump’s campaign met with people who said they were working for the Russian government and had damaging information on Hillary Clinton, those Trump campaign members did not inform the FBI, as they should have?

  5. Chris says:

    The facts you’re leaving out is that the whistleblower made vague comments to Schiff’s staff, which referred him to the proper channels. The Trump-appointed inspector general says all procedure was followed. The thrust of the complaint, that Trump improperly made a political favor a condition of foreign aid, has been confirmed by his own big mouth, a mouth that has since expressed the desire to see the whistleblower executed.

    You’re complaining that the guy telling you the Titanic is sinking is speaking too loud. Abandon ship. You’ll be glad you did when this is all over.

  6. J Soden says:

    Pencil-Neck Schiff-for-Brains claimed for the last 2+ YEARS that he’d seen “real evidence” of wrongdoing by TheDonald regarding the Russia Russia Russia hoax.
    Yet he never was able to produce that “real evidence” to anyone . . . . .
    Perhaps we should refer to him as BullShifft. . . . . .

    • Peggy says:

      Mueller never found any evidence either. If Schiff had it why didn’t he give it to Mueller? Rhetorical question. Schiff is a flat out liar who should be censured and removed from the Intelligence committee, that shouldn’t be lead committee in the unofficial investigation.

  7. J Soden says:

    And even from WaPo!!!!
    https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2019/10/04/washpost-slaps-adam-schiff-with-four-pinocchios-for-flat-out-false-claim/
    Although whenever dealing with this moron, a TRUCKLOAD of Pinocchios are needed.

  8. Chris says:

    Mitt Romney today: “When the only American citizen President Trump singles out for China’s investigation is his political opponent in the midst of the Democratic nomination process, it strains credulity to suggest that it is anything other than politically motivated. By all appearances, the President’s brazen and unprecedented appeal to China and to Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden is wrong and appalling.”

    https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/464396-romney-trump-requesting-biden-investigation-from-china-ukraine-wrong-and

    Counterpoint?

  9. Peggy says:

    Democrat’s ties to Ukraine uncovered.

    BREAKING: Nancy Pelosi’s Son Was Exec At Gas Company That Did Business In Ukraine:
    https://nationalfile.com/breaking-nancy-pelosis-son-was-exec-at-gas-company-that-did-business-in-ukraine/?fbclid=IwAR1obzyW5cnYWlCi6PTCYw6LMKWULka2zgNf8Rj5A3Lw86g8UI8g1P1RkqE

    Energy company Viscoil listed as FTB/Suspended, which means it was suspended by the CA Secretary of State.:
    https://www.ca-registry.com/C3302027-viscoil-ml-l-inc?fbclid=IwAR1lK_Bolom2riv-j7hlYJfT3FdVTvOgjYE-FyrsIy3Qg307h687L4gcR_c

    Viscoil involved Russian SERGEY SOROKIN:
    https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/Document/RetrievePDF?Id=200930910003-12222900&fbclid=IwAR0IICr9CxPrvejJPlkLZ5VSi78MGfTEyKIIJ4l0fOC3pq1kSuCJ-5DKbJU

    Pelosi Junior’s previous company, Natural Blue Resources, was suspended by the FEC for fraud, and employing two men illegally who were convicted of fraud and GRAND LARCENY.:
    https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2018/33-10598.pdf?fbclid=IwAR19u_7KDR8izXC9Hodx8ZnfgwL2O7Y_ZubhKLQjMlRjzZcqUWRcHDmrsTE

  10. Peggy says:

    Well, isn’t this interesting?!

    If New Paul Sperry Report About Whistleblower Is True, It’s A Game Changer:

    “Investigative reporter Paul Sperry reported on Thursday night that the whistleblower whose complaint triggered the House of Representatives to open an impeachment inquiry against President Trump, was “himself helping dig up dirt in Ukraine against Trump (and Manafort) while working in the Obama White House during 2016 campaign.” In an earlier tweet, Sperry wrote, “BREAKING: The whistleblower is a registered Democrat & CIA analyst who was detailed before the 2016 election to the Obama White House, where he worked on the NSC’s Ukraine desk & met w anti-Trump Ukrainian officials before being sent packing by the Trump NSC & becoming disgruntled.”

    If these allegations are proven, and Paul Sperry is a very credible journalist, it blows up the Democrats’ case against Trump.”

    https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-vaughn/2019/10/04/paul-sperry-report-whistleblower-dug-dirt-ukraine-trump-manafort-2016-campaign/

  11. Libby says:

    Suckered again.

    https://tinyurl.com/yxlfckzf

    I guess I just have to keep repeating it: The Republic is unlikely to survive such seemingly extraordinary quantities of stupidity.

  12. Peggy says:

    Bye bye. I hear perjury charges coming. Time for more popcorn.

    Report: Anti-Trump Whistleblower Concealed Contacts With House Democrats From Inspector General:
    https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/04/report-anti-trump-whistleblower-concealed-contacts-with-house-democrats-from-inspector-general/

  13. Chris says:

    The defenses are getting sadder: now Trump says the “perfect, beautiful conversation” he had with the president of Ukraine was one he didn’t want to have and only did it because Rick Perry told him to.

    Innocent people definitely change their defenses at least once a day.

  14. Peggy says:

    Day maker, when a young black leader prays for our president at the WH.

    Trump Stopped Cold When A Black Supporter Asked To Pray For Him — What She Did Next Floored The Room:

    https://dailycaller.com/2019/10/06/trump-black-supporter-asked-pray-for-him/?fbclid=IwAR3o54ToyM-DQzK7ebLih_cgvjH7Fyv4YXTo3Bog9dzkilmw_gKJn674NBg

  15. J. Soden says:

    Just finished reading “Justice on Trial” about the massive attempt to smear Brett Kavanaugh. Recommended to anyone with an open mind. (obviously does not include Chris or Lippy. . . . . . . . . .) Learned a LOT, and I had followed that pretty closely.

    And the current “whistleblower” pile of dreck smells a LOT like the Kavanugh smear!

  16. Chris says:

    You can tell the president’s legal defenses are going super well because his lawyers are now reduced to arguing that Nixon was the victim of Watergate.

    https://twitter.com/hsu_spencer/status/1181602530826035200

    Meanwhile, his administration continues to obstruct justice by illegally refusing to comply with federal subpoenas, definitely a thing you would do if you were innocent. Let’s add that to the articles of impeachment.

    • Peggy says:

      Chris, what would you do if you were accused of doing something at work that could get you fired, but you weren’t allowed to know who accused you of your wrongdoing, see any of the evidence being used against you, have a union rep and an attorney present and to question your accuser? Does a citizen of the US lose his/her rights just because they are president.? The same rights should apply to a English teacher and the president.

      Precedence has been established from four previous impeachments that “The House” votes to open a formal impeachment investigation. The rules do not say the Speaker decides.

      U.S. Constitution, Article II, section 4:

      “The Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power to impeach an official, and it makes the Senate the sole court for impeachment trials.”

      The House’s Role
      The House brings impeachment charges against federal officials as part of its oversight and investigatory responsibilities. Individual Members of the House can introduce impeachment resolutions like ordinary bills, or the House could initiate proceedings by passing a resolution authorizing an inquiry. The Committee on the Judiciary ordinarily has jurisdiction over impeachments, but special committees investigated charges before the Judiciary Committee was created in 1813. The committee then chooses whether to pursue articles of impeachment against the accused official and report them to the full House. If the articles are adopted (by simple majority vote), the House appoints Members by resolution to manage the ensuing Senate trial on its behalf. These managers act as prosecutors in the Senate and are usually members of the Judiciary Committee. The number of managers has varied across impeachment trials but has traditionally been an odd number. The partisan composition of managers has also varied depending on the nature of the impeachment, but the managers, by definition, always support the House’s impeachment action.”
      https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Impeachment/

      • Chris says:

        Chris, what would you do if you were accused of doing something at work that could get you fired, but you weren’t allowed to know who accused you of your wrongdoing, see any of the evidence being used against you, have a union rep and an attorney present and to question your accuser? Does a citizen of the US lose his/her rights just because they are president.? The same rights should apply to a English teacher and the president.

        Save me the sob story. If all of this happened to me, an English teacher, and I refused to show up after being subpoenaed, I would be arrested. As would you. You’ve complained in the past about a two-tiered justice system, but you have no problem with this, demonstrating that your complaints were not in good faith.

    • Post Scripts says:

      Guilty by reason of non-compliance. Please add that to the articles of impeachment.

      • Chris says:

        Non-compliance with the law, which doesn’t allow people to just not show up for subpoenas if they don’t want to, is in fact impeachable, Jack.

        • Post Scripts says:

          Pie here: Jack did not make that reply. It was mine. And yes, I dearly want Democrats to add guilt by reason of non-compliance to the articles of impeachment. See? We are on the same side here! I welcome impeachment proceedings. Your representatives in the legislature need to quit pussy footing around. Another Kavanaugh debacle is not enough to win the election.

        • Peggy says:

          Schiff and the others have been sending “letters” not subpoenas and then lying to everyone about it. Trump called their bluff, so they now have to go through the legal process. A letter is not a subpoena.

          White House Subpoenaed in House Impeachment Inquiry:

          Washington, D.C. (Oct. 4, 2019)—Today, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, the Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, Rep. Adam Schiff, the Chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and Rep. Eliot L. Engel, the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, sent a letter conveying a subpoena to White House Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney for key documents as part of the House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump.

          On September 9, 2019, the Committees sent a letter asking the White House to voluntarily produce documents by September 16, 2019. The White House did not produce any documents, did not send any reply letter, and did not acknowledge receipt of the request.

          On September 24, 2019, the Committees sent a follow-up letter warning that the Chairmen would be forced to consider compulsory process if the White House continued to disregard the request, and they set a new deadline of September 26, 2019. Again, the White House ignored the request.

          On October 2, 2019, Chairman Cummings sent a memo to Members of the Oversight Committee explaining that he intended to issue a subpoena today if the White House continued to disregard the requests. The White House has not produced any documents and has not sent any reply.”

          https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/white-house-subpoenaed-in-house-impeachment-inquiry

          • Chris says:

            It’s true that they sent letters asking Trump officials to voluntarily submit to questioning first, but since that article was posted they have sent actual subpoenas, and Trump has ordered people not to comply with them. If they follow up by not complying with the actual subpoenas they are in violation of the law.

  17. Pie Guevara says:

    Re Chris “I thought that comment was too dumb for Jack. Repeat after me: Obstruction. Of. Justice.”

    Chris again misses the point in his zeal to insult me. I encourage Chris to repeat after me, slowly, Guilt. By. Reason. Of. Non. Compliance. This is the conclusion Chris’ astute legal mind has came to in his original comment and which I was addressing.

    Of course, in Chris mind, any impeachment proceedings do not need to formally establish and prove a charge of obstruction of justice and that a President must comply with such supoenas, that is just an unnecessary formality. Non-compliance means guilty in the kangaroo clown court to come.

  18. Peggy says:

    Too funny not to share. Enjoy!

    Comedian Tom Shillue, as Adam Schiff, reads nursery rhymes on The Greg Gutfeld Show:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4ONTvw_dac

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *