Posted on 11/20/2019 10:03:37 AM PST by sickoflibs
When even the Washington Post is calling a Democrat for lying not only once but a second time, you know that that Democrat must be setting a new standard for falsehoods that the WaPo just can’t avoid reporting.
They nailed House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA), but good.
Schiff has a long history of not telling the truth.
He famously claimed that there was evidence of which he was aware that proved conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians. He of course never produced such evidence and the Mueller report concluded that there was no conspiracy.
He opened hearings into the Trump-Zelensky July 25 Ukraine call by lying about what was said in the call, knowing that many might not see the transcript of what was actually said. He later claimed it was “parody” but then continued to lie about the call during television interviews to make President Donald Trump look bad.
The WaPo had previously given Schiff four Pinocchios in October for lying about contacts with the whistleblower claiming his panel had “not spoken directly with the whistleblower.” WaPo called that “flat-out false.” Schiff’s committee aide had in fact met with the whistleblower and even recommended he file a complaint. The whistleblower also sent Schiff a letter dated Aug. 12, apprising him about the call/complaint.
Schiff has continued to tell falsehoods throughout the hearings, including that he doesn’t know who the whistleblower is. Yet during the hearing with Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, he stopped him from naming one of the people whom he discussed the July 25th call with, claiming it was necessary to “protect the whistleblower.” Rep. Jim Jordan nailed him on it yesterday during the hearing.
Benny ✔ @bennyjohnson 🔥JIM JORDAN NUKES SCHIFF ON LIVE TV 🔥
Jordan was asking about who was leaking national security information.
Schiff stops him to "protect the whistleblower"
Jordan to Schiff:
"You have said you don't know who the whistleblower is - even though no one believes you."
Schiff has tried to clean up the disaster his witnesses have left during the day, recasting what they actually said to more closely fit his narrative. For example he falsely claimed yesterday that Vindman thought Trump broke the law when Vindman never said that.
There was a virtual host of lies for which the WaPo could have nailed him. But they did give him three Pinocchios for a big lie which has inhibited getting at the truth of the proceedings. Three and four Pinocchios means the lie is more egregious.
From The Hill:
Schiff has said repeated recently, including during impeachment hearings on Tuesday, that the whistleblower who filed a formal complaint about Trump’s July 25 phone call with the president of Ukraine, has a statutory right to remain anonymous.
“The whistleblower has the right, a statutory right, to anonymity. These proceedings will not be used to out the whistleblower,” Schiff said Tuesday.
The Post fact-checker disagreed, stating “it’s not a right spelled out in any statute.”
The WaPo noted that anonymity is not included in the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act.
“The case for Three: The ICWPA doesn’t include language granting whistleblowers a right to anonymity. Neither do other statutes, directives or court rulings that apply to the intelligence community,” it reads.
Every Republican should be calling out this lie in the hearings every time they have the opportunity to speak. He continues to deceive the public and suffers no consequences for his lies.
Since there isn’t anyone in Washington who knows the identity of the whistleblower why can’t the GOP call Eric Ciarmella as an expert procedural White House policy witness?
LOl!
If it is the case that anonymity is not legally protected then why o why won’t any GOPer say Eric Ciaramella? Are they all just wimps?
Nah...just row your glass bottom boat through the DC sewers... it’ll all be there
Because the Democrat Fascist Congress holds the rule book and they have made it verboten. You don’t get to ignore the rules just because you don’t like them
Adam Schiff tells deliberate untruths? Who knew?
I always attributed his utterances to ignorance. But then, the ignorance is entirely willful, which is the most intractable and pernicious sort of ignorance.
Adam Schiff has limited his picture of reality to his own echo chamber, and cannot hear any other voices out there.
‘Tis a pity. Here he could have stayed in his own little suzerainty in California, and lasted well into old age without ever exposing himself to the towering abuse that is sure to befall him in coming weeks and months. What has come to him so far, is but a trifle.
But then, some people don’t have enough adversity in their lives, they got to out and invent some. Even to the point of picking a fight they cannot possible win.
With so many Pinocchios, Adam Schiff qualifies to be referred to the elephant man
Meh, they don’t rule the Senate. The GOP in the Senate could hold a hearing and call Caramello to the stand and out him if they want. Apparently they just don’t want to.
*why can’t the GOP call Eric Ciarmella as an expert procedural White House policy witness?*
Because Schiff isn’t letting the GOP call any witnesses that they want to call.
...a fight they cannot possible win.
____________________________________________
I think Nancy decided to let this continue so she could get rid of Schiff. Has Nadler squeaked lately? I haven’t read his name anywhere. She shut him up good.
I had exactly the same idea, Schiff will object using the same excuse but it will just make him look even stupider
FNCs excuse is that they have no authoritative source that its him, so it wouldnt be ethical to accuse him based on rumors.
But it is ethical to hold impeachment hearings to try and remove the President based on rumors and hearsay?
That is called ‘politic’s which by its nature is NOT ethical.
Its war.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.