The shit-show from the Democrats should be billed as the number one comedy of the year.
Because leftists don’t even know when to just shut their mouths.
In fact, Adam Schiff just pulled the classic “open mouth, insert foot” move. Add Pelosi and Schumer, and we’ve got a Three Stooges remake on our hands. However, Schiff is the doofus of the day. During his opening remarks, Schiff cited an op-ed article, which isn’t really the kind of evidence a United States Senator would typically refer to. Especially at an impeachment hearing, which should rely solely on factual information.
The House Intelligence Committee chairman cited a Sep. 5, 2019 editorial titled: “Trump tries to force Ukraine to meddle in the 2020 election.”
On September 25th [sic], the Washington Post editorial board reported concerns that President Trump was withholding military assistance for Ukraine, and a White House meeting, in order to force President Zelensky to announce investigations of Vice President Biden and purported Ukrainian interference in the U.S. election.
The Post editorial board wrote: “[W]e are reliably told that the president has a second and more venal agenda. He is attempting to force Mr. Zelensky to intervene in the 2020 presidential election by launching an investigation of the leading Democratic candidate, Joe Biden. Mr. Trump is not just soliciting Ukraine’s help with his presidential campaign; he is using military aid the country desperately needs in an attempt to extort it.
Schiff used the editorial as factual evidence that Trump was “on notice” that his “scheme” had been discovered.
Notably, the Sep. 5 editorial closely tracked the accusations that were contained in the so-called “whistleblower” complaint, whose claims were not yet known to the public at the time.
Did He or Didn’t He
As the story goes, the so-called whistleblower wrote to both Schiff and Senator Richard Burr in August, 2019. He (or she) claimed first-hand knowledge of Trump’s alleged abuse of power. In fact, the claim states that Trump “is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election.”
We all know Schiff was like a Mexican jumping bean once this letter appeared. He was just begging to release such information. Thus, Schiff issued a subpoena to the Acting Director of National Intelligence in an effort to force his hand and release the details.
At the time, Schiff maintained the conceit that he was not familiar with the content of the complaint, which was finally published Sep. 26. However, the New York Times exposed Schiff’s deception on Oct. 2, when it reported that the “whistleblower” had early contact with Schiff’s committee staff.
Given Schiff’s urgency to see the complaint reported and released, it is plausible that he — or someone close to him — was the source who “reliably told” the editorial board about the “whistleblower” allegations against the president.
The editorial board was likely a safer outlet than the news section, which would have been expected to investigate more fully the origins and credibility of the claim against the president before publishing it as reliable information.
The Post editorial helped create an atmosphere of suspicion and anticipation that led to the complaint’s release and the impeachment itself. And on Wednesday, the Post editorial conveniently provided a “fact” — a “reliably told” story — that Schiff could cite in his case for Trump’s removal.
Questions, and More Questions
It’s pretty fishy that Schiff treated an op-ed as fact. The word “opinion” is sort of a dead give away that personal thoughts and ideas are sprinkled in between the actual facts. So why would Schiff refer to such an article?
Breitbart tells us:
The most logical explanation is that Schiff considered the article “factual” because he himself was the source. He seems to have cited the Post in the same way the FBI in the “Crossfire Hurricane” case cited Yahoo! News to the FISA court without revealing Yahoo! was using the same source as the FBI.
That raises a number of questions that Republican Senators must address when opening arguments for both sides are over, and the Senate allows 16 hours for questions:
- Was Schiff the anonymous source for the Post?
- If so, why didn’t he disclose his role as a fact witness to the Senate?
- And if so, why is he leading the case against the president?
Schiff’s office declined to comment on the assertions of this article. Thus, we’ll have to watch the impeachment to see how it all pans out. That is, if we can stay awake long enough.