19 thoughts on “Adam Schiff”

  1. Why not just have AG Barr indict Schiff for among other things leaking classified documents to the press?

  2. The only price to pay is in the court of public opinion and since Schiff is working with the media on this stuff to achieve a common goal, he will not be held accountable.

    Our media can’t be honest because they have been, and still are, active participants in the coup attempts. A true accounting would show their collusion with career employees in government agencies to subvert democracy.

  3. “The only price to pay is in the court of public opinion and since Schiff is working with the media on this stuff to achieve a common goal, he will not be held accountable.”

    Suppose they uncover irrefutable evidence that Schiff leaked classified information to the press. Barr at Trump’s insistence brings charges against Schiff (and/or Nadler). There are no special legal protections from indictment/arrest/trial of a member of congress whether they are impeached or not as far as I know. Public/press opinion be dammed Barr goes ahead with the prosecution; at the end of the day he (Schiff) is convicted sent to jail. Let the press rant and rave as they see fit doesn’t change the outcome.

  4. “Count Schiff among the many leakers who have released classified information and testimony designed to damage and slander the Trump administration. During the testimony of Donald Trump, Jr. before the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Schiff repeatedly left the room. Coincidentally, of course, leaked information from that testimony began appearing in anti-Trump media even before the testimony concluded”

    Leaking classified documents/testimony is a crime is it not? From your posted link:

    “Donald Trump Jr. and his lawyer formally requested an investigation Tuesday into leaks from the House Intelligence Committee that followed Trump’s participation in a closed-door interview with committee members and staffers last week.

    “The public release of confidential non-public information by Committee members continued unabated” for 24 hours after Trump’s supposedly confidential interview last week, Trump’s lawyer, Alan Futerfas, wrote in a letter delivered Tuesday afternoon.

    The four-page letter, addressed to Rep. K. Michael Conaway (R-Tex.), the panel chairman overseeing the Russia investigation, complains about public comments made by three members of the panel, all Democrats, including the highest-ranking minority member of the panel, Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.). The letter says that members and staffers began “selectively leaking information” even before the closed-door meeting ended.”

    Never mind complaining to Congress…have the justice department do an investigation to determine if law(s) were broken and indict if they find that they were. The media will condemn Trump/Barr no matter what they do so attempting to placate them by ignoring this issue won’t help Trump much.

  5. My understanding is, sitting members of Congress are protected from arrest so long as Congress is in session. I don’t think the House is compelled to recess, which would be interesting to behold.

  6. “My understanding is, sitting members of Congress are protected from arrest so long as Congress is in session. I don’t think the House is compelled to recess, which would be interesting to behold.”

    “MYTH: Members of Congress are exempt from following the laws they enact.

    FACT: Again, according to FactCheck.org: “…following the “Republican Revolution” of 1994, which put republicans in control of both House and Senate, Congress passed the Congressional Accountability Act (PL 104-1), which applies a dozen civil rights, labor and workplace safety regulations to the legislative branch.” There is, however, a constitutional exemption to some laws. Article 1 section 6 of the constitution states Members of Congress, “shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”

    https://perry.house.gov/how-can-scott-help/myths-about-congress.htm

    1. Yes, even their Constitutional protection is void in the case of a felony, of which the unauthorized release of classified information is certainly an instance. There may be some who would argue that, as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Schiff could declassify anything he wanted. I doubt that is a valid argument, but the media’s studied ignorance of the handling of classified information would allow them to promulgate it as fact.

      The really scary thing is that Schiff is Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, which means that he and a few of his staff are “super users” who have unrestricted access to all classified information. His antics would, in any employment situation, ensure that he would never receive a security clearance. (That gives lie to the assertion in all of the security training given to cleared people that a clearance isn’t granted to someone just because they were elected or appointed to a particular position.) He shouldn’t have one at all, let alone be able to access all U.S. intelligence information.

  7. A bit of irony that has gone unnoticed about Representative Schiff is how he came to be the Congressman from the 28th District of California.

    His predecessor in that congressional seat was Republican James Rogan. Because of his experience as a prosecutor and a court judge, Rogan was the named the Prosecutor in the impeachment of President Clinton. At the end of that unsuccessful effort, he was targeted for extinction by the Democrat Party – at the national level.

    The money put into Schiff’s campaign by the Democrats was, at the time, the most for any House race in history. And he won, narrowly, as I recall.

    So it’s ironic that Schiff is the man leading the impeachment charge against President Trump, when the only reason is in the House was as revenge against the man who lead the impeachment prosecution of Clinton!

  8. Of course you know that Nadler, Schiff’s replacement, AOC, and Polooka Pelosi would scream “OBSTRUCTION!” if Schiff was indicted and they would use that as a basis of articles of imeachment.

    That we’ve gotten to the point where someone who very possibly violated the law cannot be tried is a sad sad day.

    That the public doesn’t rise up and condemn these shenanigans is sad. I can only hope they are biding their time waiting for the next election.

    1. “Of course you know that Nadler, Schiff’s replacement, AOC, and Polooka Pelosi would scream “OBSTRUCTION!” if Schiff was indicted and they would use that as a basis of articles of impeachment”

      But since they intend to impeach Trump regardless he has nothing to lose by going after them. If Schiff and or Nadler broke federal laws he should have Barr indict/prosecute; yes the dems would scream “impeach” and the media would follow suit. Let them prosecute him/then anyway.

  9. Quite honestly, I never heard of a “myth” that said Congress was immune from its own laws, but if the Internet says so, it must be true.

    Guys, reading modern definitions into text from more than 225 years ago is a fool’s game. Back when the Constitution was written, “felony” referred to crimes for which your property and goods could be consiscated and to which additional punishments up to the death penalty could be imposed. All other crimes (except Treason) were generally called “misdemeanors.” In modern usage, in the US, a felony is any crime for which the term of imprisonment is more than one year. That’s all. The exceptions in the Constitution, treason (War was involved), major crimes against the state (usually see above) and breach of peace (because the Founding Fathers were a fractious lot and knew they sometimes injured and even killed on another), because quick action was required when pistols were drawn (actually happened) or one Congressman tried to cane another one to death (actually happened).

    As it happens, “vandalism on Federal property” is a felony. So if Schiff takes a Crayola crayon and draws a dick on his desk, can the Federal Marshals break down the doors of the House chamber and drag him away?

    And since Impeachment only mentions Treason, or High Crimes and Misdemeanors, but not Felonies, can Trump run out in the street and shoot a random person to death with impunity?

    This is why discussions of the Constitution quickly bog down in discussions of “original iuntent,” and why experts on constitutional law (usually law school professors) so frequently make fools of themselves.

    But by all means, lets be as silly as we wanna be!

    1. Congress is not intrinsically immune from its own laws, but it often writes the laws in such a way as to make them so. This was one of the grievances that Gingrich’s Contract With America was supposed to address.

      1. “Congress is not intrinsically immune from its own laws, but it often writes the laws in such a way as to make them so.”

        Or behave as if they do even if they (the laws) aren’t actually written that way. Consider how Jim Comey literally redefined the statues to let Hillary off the hook for her insecure server.

    2. “Quite honestly, I never heard of a “myth” that said Congress was immune from its own laws, but if the Internet says so, it must be true.”

      Well Congress seems to behave as if they think laws don’t apply to them. They (Congress) attempted to get Barr to release to them grand jury testimony protected by law on the theory that their subpoena power was absolute. And then held him in contempt of Congress for his failure to comply; even going so far as threatening him with “jail” in the basement of the Capital building for his “crime” of following the law.

  10. On March 22, 2017, in a interview with Chuck Todd on MSNBC Schiff claimed there was “more than circumstantial evidence now” that Donald Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia. Todd followed up by asking if he had seen direct evidence of collusion and Schiff responded that there was “evidence that is not circumstantial and is very much worthy of investigation.”

      1. “Yes, Schiff lies about lots of things.”

        Yes…and he needs to be held legally accountable for his lies. Prosecuted if possible, otherwise this will continue. A “whistleblower” who didn’t actually directly witness anything. The written procedure detailing that in order to be a whistleblower you needed to have direct knowledge of suspect behavior/action altered by person(s) unknown removing that requirement, a month before the complaint was made. The news media/dems demanding Trump be impeached for asking the Ukranian President to look into allegations that Biden pressured the Ukraine into firing a prosecutor investigating Biden’s son’s company or risk a billion in aid rescinded. They (the media) report the requested (pressure) from Trump without mentioning much about why this issue arose (Biden’s actions). Trump will not resign; he knows that if he did they wouldn’t stop pursuing him and his family. The only means to fight back Trump has is the fact that he is President; if he left they would vindictively continue going after him until they succeeded in ruining him and his family as a lesson.

    1. Schiff has said that for years…that HE has incontrovertible evidence of Trump Rooshian collusion.

      He never produced it.

Comments are closed.